Advance stop lines

[Matt B]

With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?

The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.

Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the red
space between the two stop lines?

When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into single
file?

TIA.

--
Matt B

[Zog The Undeniable]

Matt B wrote:

> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
> does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>
> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>
> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the red
> space between the two stop lines?

Precisely. I understand that (technically) you should ONLY use the
cycle lane to enter the box, but this is of course unworkable depending
on traffic conditions.

> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into single
> file?

Same as normal, I guess, no more than 2 abreast. Personally I prefer to
see groups single out on busy roads, although our local CTC section
never does - I've known drivers be stuck behind for 5 minutes. When I
rode with Beacon RCC there was a bit more discipline ;-)

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:59:55 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
> wrote this:-

>With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
>does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?

"Cyclecraft" covers them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

[Nigel]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
> does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>
> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>
> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the red
> space between the two stop lines?
>
> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into single
> file?
>
> TIA.
>
> --
> Matt B
>
>

Hi Matt,

I thought I'd have a ferret on the 'net for a solution, and in Section 9.1.3
of http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/09.htm I think I've found it.

The red box is there to highlight a zone for visibility, you don't move
across into it, but you do move forward as far as it's front edge. This puts
you ahead and left of the motorised stuff, so they know you're there, and
you don't get squished by 'artics' that wouldn't be able to see you if you
were alongside them.

I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists to
think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still only
entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

Regards

Nigel

[Graham Dean]

"Nigel" > wrote in message
k...
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
>> does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>>
>> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>>
>> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the red
>> space between the two stop lines?
>>
>> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
>> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into single
>> file?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>> --
>> Matt B
>>
>>
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> I thought I'd have a ferret on the 'net for a solution, and in Section
> 9.1.3 of http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/09.htm I think I've found
> it.
>
> The red box is there to highlight a zone for visibility, you don't move
> across into it, but you do move forward as far as it's front edge. This
> puts you ahead and left of the motorised stuff, so they know you're there,
> and you don't get squished by 'artics' that wouldn't be able to see you if
> you were alongside them.
>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
> to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still
> only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>
> Regards
>
> Nigel
>
>

Turning right?

Graham

[Tony Raven]

Nigel wrote:
>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists to
> think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still only
> entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>

I'm entitled to whichever part of the lane that is appropriate for my
situation. Cyclists' rights on the road don't stop 3ft from the kerb.

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

[Tony W]

"Nigel" > wrote in message
k...
>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
to
> think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still only
> entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

Is the wrong answer.

Cyclists are entitled to use the whole road within the restrictions of the
law.

T

[Pete Biggs]

Matt B wrote:
> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic
> lights, does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be
> used?

Just do whatever comes naturally and seems reasonabubble. I like ASLs!

If it's not safe to use one then don't.

~PB

[wafflycat]

"Nigel" > wrote in message
k...

>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
> to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still
> only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>
> Regards
>
> Nigel
>
>

Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3 feet of
road??

Cheers, helen s

[Jon Senior]

Nigel wrote:
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
>>does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>>
>>The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.

You're right Matt:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#154

It doesn't say a great deal on the matter.

> I thought I'd have a ferret on the 'net for a solution, and in Section 9.1.3
> of http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/09.htm I think I've found it.

See above for a link to UK government information on the subject. This
is after all uk.rec.cycling. :-)

Jon

[Adrian Boliston]

"Graham Dean" > wrote:

> Turning right?

I actually have seen some crazy cyclists turn right by enetring the ASL from
the *left* hand cycle lane and then move diagonally across the ASL to turn
right which is potential suicide if the lights were to change just as they
were moving across!

[Tony Raven]

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "Graham Dean" > wrote:
>
>
>>Turning right?
>
>
> I actually have seen some crazy cyclists turn right by enetring the ASL from
> the *left* hand cycle lane and then move diagonally across the ASL to turn
> right which is potential suicide if the lights were to change just as they
> were moving across!
>
>

Good leaflet at
http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c4/37/67/Advance_Stop_lines.pdf

"Turning right

If traffic is moving on the approach to the junction,
cyclists may wish to leave the cycle lane and approach
the junction towards the right of the traffic lane to make
the right turn - as they would at a junction with no ASL
- first making sure that it is clear to do so and indicating
their intentions to other road users.

If traffic is stopped, cyclists may wish to approach the
junction in the nearside cycle lane and take up a position
to the right of the cycle advance area, again after first
making sure that it is clear to do so and indicating their
intentions to other road users."

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

[Mark Blewett]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:37:14 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
> wrote:

>"Graham Dean" > wrote:
>
>> Turning right?
>
>I actually have seen some crazy cyclists turn right by enetring the ASL from
>the *left* hand cycle lane and then move diagonally across the ASL to turn
>right which is potential suicide if the lights were to change just as they
>were moving across!

I'd been wondering about these ASL boxes, they didn't exist last time
I rode!

You could say the same for as you enter the ASL box (to go straight
on).. the lights change as you reach it, the driver doesn't notice you
and turns left.

Having just started cycling again, I'm not sure where there are / are
not ASL's.. so at the moment I'm checking behind, signalling (if
needed), and moving to the centre of the lane I want to be in and
waiting behind the cars in front.

I stay in the centre of the lane until the junction has been crossed
(left, right or straight on), before moving back into a normal road
position.

I don't know if this right / wrong... but feels the safest way to me
at the moment.

Regards
Mark

[Matt B]

"Nigel" > wrote in message
k...
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
>> does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>>
>> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>>
>> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the red
>> space between the two stop lines?
>>
>> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
>> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into single
>> file?
>
> I thought I'd have a ferret on the 'net for a solution, and in Section
> 9.1.3 of http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/09.htm I think I've found
> it.
>
> The red box is there to highlight a zone for visibility, you don't move
> across into it, but you do move forward as far as it's front edge. This
> puts you ahead and left of the motorised stuff, so they know you're there,
> and you don't get squished by 'artics' that wouldn't be able to see you if
> you were alongside them.
>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
> to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still
> only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

Interesting, but I'm not sure the US stuff applies in the UK.

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic
> lights, does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be
> used?
>
> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>
> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the
> red space between the two stop lines?

Yes. To enter any other way, after the lights have turned red, is
illegal. Mind you, to filter up the left side of left turning traffic
is suicidal, but you take your pick.

> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into
> single file?

In line abreast until safe and convenient to do otherwise, I would have
thought. Jostling in a junction with cars close behind does not sound
safe to me.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

[Matt B]

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
...
>
> "Nigel" > wrote in message
> k...
>
>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
>> to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still
>> only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>
> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3 feet
> of road??

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
it, and use the road to the right of it?

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Nigel
') wrote:

> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic
>> lights, does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be
>> used?
>>
>> The highway code is a bit lacking in this area.
>>
>> Are cyclists supposed to pile down the inside cycle lane and fill the
>> red space between the two stop lines?
>>
>> When the lights change to green what is the protocol for an orderly
>> departure - should bikes continue line abreast or jossle back into
>> single file?
>
> I thought I'd have a ferret on the 'net for a solution, and in Section
> 9.1.3 of http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/09.htm I think I've
> found it.
>
> The red box is there to highlight a zone for visibility, you don't
> move across into it, but you do move forward as far as it's front
> edge. This puts you ahead and left of the motorised stuff, so they
> know you're there, and you don't get squished by 'artics' that
> wouldn't be able to see you if you were alongside them.
>
> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else,
> you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

You are _always_ entitled to the whole bloody road, except motorways.
Allowing yourself to be pushed to the left is exceedingly dangerous.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

[Matt B]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Nigel wrote:
>>
>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads cyclists
>> to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else, you're still
>> only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>
> I'm entitled to whichever part of the lane that is appropriate for my
> situation. Cyclists' rights on the road don't stop 3ft from the kerb.

Would you move forward in a queue at lights into the ASL red zone if it had
a few other bikes in it?

--
Matt B

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
> it, and use the road to the right of it?

It depends. Given that many 'cycle lanes' comprise a red or green painted
gutter complete with drains, gulleys, yellow lines, crumbling tarmac and
other crap it is often best to avoid them.

A favourite is to paint a red or green stripe along side a line of parking
bays -- nicely in line for a 'car dooring'. Again, best avoided.

Of course, cycling inside a cycle lane allows our less bright motoring
colleagues to ignore the cyclist all together and zoom along with his inside
wheels on or very near the edge of the lane.

Alternatively, cycling outside the green/red painted stripe tends to annoy
Johnny Plonker who starts shouting crap about getting off of 'his' road and
demonstrating his lack of knowledge on 'road tax', licensing regulations and
insurance.

Ho hum.

Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make the
f*cker wait.

:~)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Mark Blewett
') wrote:

> Having just started cycling again, I'm not sure where there are / are
> not ASL's.. so at the moment I'm checking behind, signalling (if
> needed), and moving to the centre of the lane I want to be in and
> waiting behind the cars in front.
>
> I stay in the centre of the lane until the junction has been crossed
> (left, right or straight on), before moving back into a normal road
> position.
>
> I don't know if this right / wrong... but feels the safest way to me
> at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned, that is definitely the safest thing to do.
Claim and hold your lane position, don't always try to filter to the
front of the queue. It may make your journeys a little longer, but it
could make your life a lot longer.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Nigel" > wrote in message
>> k...
>>
>>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
>>> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else,
>>> you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>>
>> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
>> feet of road??
>
> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
> avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?

Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> In line abreast until safe and convenient to do otherwise, I would have
> thought. Jostling in a junction with cars close behind does not sound
> safe to me.
>

You wouldn't cope in London then. ;-)

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

[JohnB]

Matt B wrote:

> Would you move forward in a queue at lights into the ASL red zone if it had
> a few other bikes in it?

What would you advise?

John B

[JohnB]

Matt B wrote:

> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
> it, and use the road to the right of it?

What would you recommend, and why?

John B

[wafflycat]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
> in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.
>

I *loathe* cycle lanes for the very reason you describe and the fact that
too many off them are unwanted, not needed, poorly designed and put where
they create danger for cyclists rather than reduce danger,

Cheers, helen s

[Matt B]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:59:55 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
>>does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?
>
> "Cyclecraft" covers them.

Thanks, but I don't have a copy to hand. Can you summarise the gist? Is it
available online anywhere?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"JohnB" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Would you move forward in a queue at lights into the ASL red zone if it
>> had
>> a few other bikes in it?
>
> What would you advise?

I'm not really familiar/experienced enough to be able to give an
authoritative view, but am tempted to go to the front and fill the space, as
it is provided. I'm a little worried about the consequential chaotic
move-off though, which is why I'm looking for views from this group.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Nigel" > wrote in message
>>> k...
>>>
>>>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
>>>> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else,
>>>> you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>>>
>>> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
>>> feet of road??
>>
>> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
>> avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?
>
> Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
> in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

Would it be better/safer if these lanes were removed do you think?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
>> it, and use the road to the right of it?
>
> It depends. Given that many 'cycle lanes' comprise a red or green painted
> gutter complete with drains, gulleys, yellow lines, crumbling tarmac and
> other crap it is often best to avoid them.

Yes, I've noticed, even to the extent of a _missing_ gulley grid in one
place leaving a huge square hole.

> A favourite is to paint a red or green stripe along side a line of parking
> bays -- nicely in line for a 'car dooring'. Again, best avoided.
>
> Of course, cycling inside a cycle lane allows our less bright motoring
> colleagues to ignore the cyclist all together and zoom along with his
> inside
> wheels on or very near the edge of the lane.

They often seem rather narrow to me.

> Alternatively, cycling outside the green/red painted stripe tends to annoy
> Johnny Plonker who starts shouting crap about getting off of 'his' road
> and
> demonstrating his lack of knowledge on 'road tax', licensing regulations
> and
> insurance.

So perhaps we'd be better without the lines and with better _educated_ road
users.

> Ho hum.
>
> Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
> decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make the
> f*cker wait.

I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee to
be able to use the road in safety and in peace.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"JohnB" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
>> it, and use the road to the right of it?
>
> What would you recommend, and why?

I find them often too narrow, too intermittent and of dubious road surface
quality. They give a certain "sense of security" leading, perhaps, to "over
confidence" or even disregard of other road users. They do, on the whole,
keep the buses, trucks, etc. over slightly to the right, and perhaps make
motorised traffic more aware of the likelihood of encoutering a cyclist.

They also, as seems to be the view of many here, provide an excuse for
inconsiderate/ignorant/arrogant motorists to be annoyed, perhaps because
they resent (fallaciously maybe ;-) that they are the "cash cows", paying
the lion's share towards these things, the consequences of which are less
productive roadspace, leading innevitably to slower progress.

So to answer the question :-) I would, as suggested by a PP in this thread,
suggest using them if they feel right, but (carefully) avoiding them if they
felt wrong.

--
Matt B

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...

snip

> So perhaps we'd be better without the lines

Yes indeedy

> and with better _educated_ road
> users.

Now you are just being utopian.

>
> > Ho hum.
> >
> > Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
> > decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make
the
> > f*cker wait.
>
> I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee to
> be able to use the road in safety and in peace.

To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who drives
without due care and attention) need to be restrained. Personally I could
not approve of Guy's solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
attractions.

T

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snip
>
>> So perhaps we'd be better without the lines
>
> Yes indeedy
>
>> and with better _educated_ road
>> users.
>
> Now you are just being utopian.

You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?

>> > Ho hum.
>> >
>> > Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
>> > decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make
> the
>> > f*cker wait.
>>
>> I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee
>> to
>> be able to use the road in safety and in peace.
>
> To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
> dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who drives
> without due care and attention) need to be restrained.

Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

> Personally I could not approve of Guy's

Guy?

> solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
> hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
> attractions.

He believes that the problem is male only?

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> "wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Nigel" > wrote in message
>>>> k...
>>>>
>>>>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
>>>>> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone
>>>>> else, you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>>>>
>>>> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
>>>> feet of road??
>>>
>>> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
>>> avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?
>>
>> Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and,
>> usually in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.
>
> Would it be better/safer if these lanes were removed do you think?

Certainly in almost all cases, probably in all cases. I've never see one
I thought was safe to use, but there may be exceptions.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

[BigRab]

I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.

BigRAb

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Matt B" >typed

> > solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
> > hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
> > attractions.

> He believes that the problem is male only?

Tough on testosterone, tough on the *causes* of testosterone, innit?

AIUI, aggressive driving is mainly a male problem. Dippy driving affects
both sexes...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Tony Raven]

BigRab wrote:
> I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
> ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
> lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.
>

There are hordes of brave cyclists in London then. Most of us don't
even stick our hands out but just position ourselves in the ASL box for
turning right.

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

[Matt B]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> BigRab wrote:
>> I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
>> ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
>> lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.
>
> There are hordes of brave cyclists in London then. Most of us don't even
> stick our hands out but just position ourselves in the ASL box for turning
> right.

Why no signal?

--
Matt B

[LSMike]

"BigRab" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
> ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
> lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.
>
> BigRAb
>

Why would that be brave?

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...

> > Now you are just being utopian.
>
> You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?

Most could (probably) be educated. But what is the incentive? The average
driver thinks he/she is average or better than average. Serious accident
rates are low enough that most of us will, fortunately, not be involved in
one in a lifetime of driving or cycling and the percieved risk is low.

To improve driver education (other road users would also benefit from better
education but it is drivers who are in charge of leathal weapon) one would
need to change from the concept that we pass our test at 18 and drive
scerenely until old age.

Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?

Mandatory retesting after any serious offence, points accumulation or
accident?

Greater use of take the education or get a fine and points (applies for
speeders)

All would help. All would cost. All would be unpopular with those who need
it most.
>
snip

> > To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
> > dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who
drives
> > without due care and attention) need to be restrained.
>
> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
> and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

It would make more sense than painting bits of road red or green, putting up
railings everywhere and having more traffic signals than there were trees in
the wildwood.

> > Personally I could not approve of Guy's
>
> Guy?

Not been here long? He will appear shortly -- currently he is enammered
with bicycle origami. Fold -- unfold -- fold -- unfold.

> > solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
> > hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it
has
> > attractions.
>
> He believes that the problem is male only?

The male of the species is the more agressive and ovaries are more difficult
to get at (rusty knife or otherwise).

T

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Matt B" >typed

> Why no signal?

Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> > Now you are just being utopian.
>>
>> You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?
>
> Most could (probably) be educated. But what is the incentive?

Could we give some sort of financial incentive to those with certain
qualifications?

> The average
> driver thinks he/she is average or better than average. Serious accident
> rates are low enough that most of us will, fortunately, not be involved in
> one in a lifetime of driving or cycling and the percieved risk is low.
>
> To improve driver education (other road users would also benefit from
> better
> education but it is drivers who are in charge of leathal weapon) one would
> need to change from the concept that we pass our test at 18 and drive
> scerenely until old age.

What about putting "roadmanship" on the national curriculum? It could have
modules leading to several different qualifications, one of which might be a
driving licence. Isn't roadmanship an essential life skill?

> Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?

What about random checks, like breath tests, if roadmanship incompetence is
evident? Penalty points and on-the-spot fines being available for dishing
out to those who fail.

> Mandatory retesting after any serious offence, points accumulation or
> accident?
>
> Greater use of take the education or get a fine and points (applies for
> speeders)
>
> All would help. All would cost. All would be unpopular with those who
> need
> it most.

Yes, but it could/would/should become compulsory for all non-pedestrian road
users.

> snip
>
>> > To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
>> > dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who
> drives
>> > without due care and attention) need to be restrained.
>>
>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>> educating,
>> and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>
> It would make more sense than painting bits of road red or green, putting
> up
> railings everywhere and having more traffic signals than there were trees
> in
> the wildwood.

Do you think that pedal cyclists would tolerate being expected to learn and
be able to demonstrate the skill and knowledge necessary to be a good road
user, not being so used to the discipline as motor vehicle drivers?

>> > Personally I could not approve of Guy's
>>
>> Guy?
>
> Not been here long? He will appear shortly -- currently he is enammered
> with bicycle origami. Fold -- unfold -- fold -- unfold.

Ah, I may have encountered him in a previous thread.

>> > solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
>> > hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it
> has
>> > attractions.
>>
>> He believes that the problem is male only?
>
> The male of the species is the more agressive and ovaries are more
> difficult
> to get at (rusty knife or otherwise).

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt B" >typed
>
>> > solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
>> > hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it
>> > has
>> > attractions.
>
>> He believes that the problem is male only?
>
> Tough on testosterone, tough on the *causes* of testosterone, innit?
>
> AIUI, aggressive driving is mainly a male problem. Dippy driving affects
> both sexes...

Which type would you rather encounter? Which type would you rather be the
victim of?

--
Matt B

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
>
> Could we give some sort of financial incentive to those with certain
> qualifications?

Negative maybe -- show you are competant or pay. Can't see Gordon Brown
being too free with the public purse.
>
> What about putting "roadmanship" on the national curriculum? It could
have
> modules leading to several different qualifications, one of which might be
a
> driving licence. Isn't roadmanship an essential life skill?

It usd to be known as the Cycling Proficiency Test. But most modern yoof
arn't allowed past the end of the close with a bike as the roads are 'too
dangerous'.

>
> > Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?
>
> What about random checks, like breath tests, if roadmanship incompetence
is
> evident? Penalty points and on-the-spot fines being available for dishing
> out to those who fail.

Might fall foul of human rights legislation. Got to be fair to all.
Anyway, when did you last see a traffic cop?

>
> Yes, but it could/would/should become compulsory for all non-pedestrian
road
> users.

And why not pedestrians? You touch apon the difference etween pedestrians,
cyclists and horse riders -- who use the road as of right -- and motorists
who are licenced to use the road.

snip
>
> Do you think that pedal cyclists would tolerate being expected to learn
and
> be able to demonstrate the skill and knowledge necessary to be a good road
> user, not being so used to the discipline as motor vehicle drivers?

See comments above regarding Cycling Proficiency Test and use of the road as
of right. In Blair's New Britain we will all need a licence to breath and
training to fart (aka compusory ID cards)

T

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Could we give some sort of financial incentive to those with certain
>> qualifications?
>
> Negative maybe -- show you are competant or pay. Can't see Gordon Brown
> being too free with the public purse.

I prefer carrots to sticks, I'm sure they are more effective.

>> What about putting "roadmanship" on the national curriculum? It could
>> have
>> modules leading to several different qualifications, one of which might
>> be a
>> driving licence. Isn't roadmanship an essential life skill?
>
> It usd to be known as the Cycling Proficiency Test. But most modern yoof
> arn't allowed past the end of the close with a bike as the roads are 'too
> dangerous'.

Does that excuse it not being on the national curriculum?

>> > Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?
>>
>> What about random checks, like breath tests, if roadmanship incompetence
> is
>> evident? Penalty points and on-the-spot fines being available for
>> dishing
>> out to those who fail.
>
> Might fall foul of human rights legislation. Got to be fair to all.

Fair to all? Apply it to _all_ anti-social road use habits, not just "drunk
driving".

> Anyway, when did you last see a traffic cop?

Good point, but if we are to demonstrate a true committment to road safety
(rather than the current lip service paid through the so-called "safety
camera partnerships".) perhaps a new force of "road safety marshalls", or
something, is required. They don't need to know anything about the criminal
law, or be trained to drive fast, or have state-of-the-art cars and
electronic gadgetery, or be part of the police force, just be experts in
road use, and be trained to spott offenders.

>> Yes, but it could/would/should become compulsory for all non-pedestrian
> road
>> users.
>
> And why not pedestrians?

There you _would_ be talking about infringement of fundamental human rights.

> You touch apon the difference etween pedestrians,
> cyclists and horse riders -- who use the road as of right -- and motorists
> who are licenced to use the road.
>
> snip
>>
>> Do you think that pedal cyclists would tolerate being expected to learn
> and
>> be able to demonstrate the skill and knowledge necessary to be a good
>> road
>> user, not being so used to the discipline as motor vehicle drivers?
>
> See comments above regarding Cycling Proficiency Test and use of the road
> as
> of right. In Blair's New Britain we will all need a licence to breath and
> training to fart (aka compusory ID cards)

Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've discussed
above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes, cars, or whatever) into
touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to be
_allowed_ to do other more dangerous or more important things in our private
and/or public lives :-)

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt B" >typed
>
>> Why no signal?
>
> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.

Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?

Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?

--
Matt B

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Matt B" >typed



> Which type would you rather encounter? Which type would you rather be the
> victim of?


As dippy drivers usually move more slowly and and have feet off the
throttle more than aggressive drivers, I have a better chance of
surviving the dippy driver...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Matt B" >typed


> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Matt B" >typed
> >
> >> Why no signal?
> >
> > Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.

> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
> hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?

> Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?

I never said 'never'. Road positioning frequently indicates position
better than signalling. I think in some circumstances, like when moving
off, safety considerations exceed those of courtesy.

Sometimes giving a signal can be _more_ dangerous than giving none AAMOF...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Trevor Barton]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:15:33 +0100, Matt B wrote:
> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt B" >typed
>>
>>> Why no signal?
>>
>> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.
>
> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
> hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?
>
> Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?

Do you answer so many posts with questions in order to appear deep
thinking, didactic, and contemplative, or do you do it just to give
the appearance of being a complete ****? Hopefully the latter,
because it's certainly having that effect, and I'd hate to think
you were simply a moron. Ah, but then ...

--
Trevor Barton

[Matt B]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt B" >typed
>
>> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Matt B" >typed
>> >
>> >> Why no signal?
>> >
>> > Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.
>
>> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
>> hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?
>
>> Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?
>
> I never said 'never'.

No, which is why I asked th question. You said "keeping both hands on the
handlebars improves control", so I wondered if you thought that there was
_ever_ an excuse to take either off.

> Road positioning frequently indicates position

Of course. If you're in the right turn lane then one assumes you are about
to turn right, but it may be prudent to signal prior to crossing several
other lanes to get there.

> better than signalling. I think in some circumstances, like when moving
> off, safety considerations exceed those of courtesy.

It's weighing the pros and cons where the skill lies?

> Sometimes giving a signal can be _more_ dangerous than giving none
> AAMOF...

Yes, especially if it's the wrong signal ;-)

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you answer so many posts with questions in order to
> appear deep thinking, didactic, and contemplative,

None of those.

> or do you do it just to give the appearance of being a complete ****?

No.

> Hopefully the latter,

Your "clever" closed question did not cover all possibilities did it. Try
again.

> because it's certainly having that effect, and I'd hate to think
> you were simply a moron. Ah, but then ...

Are you interested in road safety?

--
Matt B

[Graham Dean]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:15:33 +0100, Matt B wrote:
> > "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Matt B" >typed
> >>
> >>> Why no signal?
> >>
> >> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.
> >
> > Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
> > hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?
> >
> > Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?
>
> Do you answer so many posts with questions in order to appear deep
> thinking, didactic, and contemplative, or do you do it just to give
> the appearance of being a complete ****? Hopefully the latter,
> because it's certainly having that effect, and I'd hate to think
> you were simply a moron. Ah, but then ...
>
> --
> Trevor Barton

Socrates - now he was a ****...

Graham

[stupot]

Matt B wrote:
> I'm not really familiar/experienced enough to be able to give an
> authoritative view, but am tempted to go to the front and fill the space, as
> it is provided. I'm a little worried about the consequential chaotic
> move-off though, which is why I'm looking for views from this group.

If there is space in the ASL and there is space to get there and looks
like time to get there then I go in.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Matt B > wrote:
>
> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
> hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?

Possibly. Makes taking a shower afterwards more difficult, however.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

"stupot" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> I'm not really familiar/experienced enough to be able to give an
>> authoritative view, but am tempted to go to the front and fill the space,
>> as it is provided. I'm a little worried about the consequential chaotic
>> move-off though, which is why I'm looking for views from this group.
>
> If there is space in the ASL and there is space to get there
> and looks like time to get there

Oh dear, another judgement call :-)

> then I go in.

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt B" >typed
>>
>>> Why no signal?
>>
>> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.
>
> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking
> either hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?

Personally, no. I signal. I even signal left turns, which many people
here argue (with some sense) is dangerous.

> Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?

I think it's vital.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Trevor Barton
') wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:15:33 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Matt B" >typed
>>>
>>>> Why no signal?
>>>
>>> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.
>>
>> Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking
>> either hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?
>>
>> Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?
>
> Do you answer so many posts with questions in order to appear deep
> thinking, didactic, and contemplative, or do you do it just to give
> the appearance of being a complete ****?

What gives you that impression? Most of the questions are sensible ones.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

[Peter Amey]

Tony W wrote:
> [snip]
>
> To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
> dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who drives
> without due care and attention) need to be restrained. Personally I could
> not approve of Guy's solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
> hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
> attractions.
>

Might be a tricky solution to apply to Ditsy Doreen 'though :-)

Peter

www.amey.org.uk

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>
> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.

You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
about pedestrians?

--
Matt B

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>
>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
>> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
>> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>
> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
> about pedestrians?

I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I see
nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[JohnB]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> "Matt B" >typed
>
> > Why no signal?
>
> Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.

Would you not give a signal, then put your hands back on the bars before
moving off?

John B

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
> > drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
> > a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>
> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
> about pedestrians?

Eh? In your world, is murder an offence? Is it therefore necessary
to license everybody?

If not, can you elaborate on why Simon's statement requires licensing
cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JohnB]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> "Matt B" >typed

> > Would you advocate that _never_ giving signals and _never_ taking either
> > hand off the handlebars results in a safer journey?
>
> > Do you consider that courtesey has a place in road use?
>
> I never said 'never'. Road positioning frequently indicates position
> better than signalling. I think in some circumstances, like when moving
> off, safety considerations exceed those of courtesy.

Isn't a combination of road positioning *and* signalling best?

> Sometimes giving a signal can be _more_ dangerous than giving none AAMOF...

Sometimes.

John B

[Matt B]

"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>>
>>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
>>> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
>>> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>>
>> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
>> about pedestrians?
>
> I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I see
> nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.

We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference to
"Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types, so concluded
that to have a licence revoked would imply having one in the first place.
Sorry if I confused you ;-)

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license
>> > to
>> > drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
>> > a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>>
>> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
>> about pedestrians?
>
> Eh? In your world, is murder an offence? Is it therefore necessary
> to license everybody?
>
> If not, can you elaborate on why Simon's statement requires licensing
> cyclists.

We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference to
"Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types (yes, including
pedal cycles), so concluded that to have a licence revoked would imply
having one in the first place. Sorry if I confused you ;-)

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes, cars,
> or whatever) into
> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to be
> allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in our
> private and/or public lives :-)

There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than driving a
car.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>
>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license
>> to drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death
>> with a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter
>> charge.
>
> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
> What about pedestrians?

When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the idea
of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a serious
road safety problem. Motorists do.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I see
> > nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.
>
> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference to
> "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types, so concluded
> that to have a licence revoked would imply having one in the first place.
> Sorry if I confused you ;-)

No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a licence (its
quite simple really). However, one could take out an injunction banning the
seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike -- but its unlikely that you
could make a case to do this more than once a year on average.

T

[Tony W]

"Peter Amey" > wrote in message
...
> Tony W wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
> > dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who
drives
> > without due care and attention) need to be restrained. Personally I
could
> > not approve of Guy's solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty
knife,
> > hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it
has
> > attractions.
> >
>
> Might be a tricky solution to apply to Ditsy Doreen 'though :-)

Replace balls with gonads if you must.

T

[Mark Blewett]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:39:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>in message >, Mark Blewett
') wrote:
>
>> Having just started cycling again, I'm not sure where there are / are
>> not ASL's.. so at the moment I'm checking behind, signalling (if
>> needed), and moving to the centre of the lane I want to be in and
>> waiting behind the cars in front.
>>
>> I stay in the centre of the lane until the junction has been crossed
>> (left, right or straight on), before moving back into a normal road
>> position.
>>
>> I don't know if this right / wrong... but feels the safest way to me
>> at the moment.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, that is definitely the safest thing to do.
>Claim and hold your lane position, don't always try to filter to the
>front of the queue. It may make your journeys a little longer, but it
>could make your life a lot longer.

Indeed (and as a new cyclist a chance to grab a breath, drink, or have
a look around!)

One thing I have noticed, prior to cycling again I thought visibility
was all... however after a few days on the bike, I realise visibility
is very important but there are lots of times where as a cyclist you
have to control the traffic by your position.

Regards
Mark

[Mark Blewett]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, "Matt B"
> wrote:

>"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>
>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
>> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
>> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>
>You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.

A slightly different tack...

I personallly don't agree with cyclists being licensed as such... but
what worries me is the number of bikes which overtake me with
mis-aligned gears (I'm an engineer.. so that sort of thing really
peeves me).

The next question is how good are the brakes, what care / checks do
they do before each ride?

If the insurance people said you can have a big x% off your premium if
for example

- you completed a recognosied cycling course
- you had an "mot"

Maybe it be better for those who actually care?

>What about pedestrians?

A a recent convert... in my limited experience pedestrians exhibit
brownian motion.. and hence go in any random direction :o)

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:10:04 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B >
> > wrote:
> >> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license
> >> > to
> >> > drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
> >> > a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
> >>
> >> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then. What
> >> about pedestrians?
> >
> > Eh? In your world, is murder an offence? Is it therefore necessary
> > to license everybody?
> >
> > If not, can you elaborate on why Simon's statement requires licensing
> > cyclists.
>
> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference to
> "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types (yes, including
> pedal cycles), so concluded that to have a licence revoked would imply
> having one in the first place. Sorry if I confused you ;-)

And you term pedestrians as drivers of their shoes, presumably?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> > I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I see
>> > nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.
>>
>> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference to
>> "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types, so concluded
>> that to have a licence revoked would imply having one in the first place.
>> Sorry if I confused you ;-)
>
> No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a licence
> (its
> quite simple really).

But, if the will was there, and licences were deemed appropriate, I am sure
the politicians could find a way ;-)

> However, one could take out an injunction banning the
> seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike

What about those who are not _seriously_ dangerous, but have committed a
handfull of minor rule transgressions in a given period of time?

> -- but its unlikely that you
> could make a case to do this more than once a year on average.

What out for the multiple minor offences?

--
Matt

[Matt B]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:10:04 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, Matt B >
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of
>> >> > license
>> >> > to
>> >> > drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death
>> >> > with
>> >> > a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter
>> >> > charge.
>> >>
>> >> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
>> >> What
>> >> about pedestrians?
>> >
>> > Eh? In your world, is murder an offence? Is it therefore necessary
>> > to license everybody?
>> >
>> > If not, can you elaborate on why Simon's statement requires licensing
>> > cyclists.
>>
>> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference
>> to
>> "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types (yes,
>> including
>> pedal cycles), so concluded that to have a licence revoked would imply
>> having one in the first place. Sorry if I confused you ;-)
>
> And you term pedestrians as drivers of their shoes, presumably?

If you think your shoes are vehicles then who am I to argue ;-) Do you
think a pedal cycle is a vehicle?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>>
>>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license
>>> to drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death
>>> with a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter
>>> charge.
>>
>> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
>> What about pedestrians?
>
> When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the idea
> of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a serious
> road safety problem. Motorists do.

Some may. It's all relative. There are some pedal cyclists who are more
dangerous than some motorists, and some motorists who are more dangerous
than some pedal cyclists. Indeed, someone who is a _very_ poor motorist,
and treats the system, and other users with contempt, and who has had his
motor driving licence revoked, can get onto a pedal cycle and continue with
his habit uninhibited.

What we possibly need is mutual respect, and an even playing field.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Mark Blewett" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03:37 +0100, "Matt B"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>>
>>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
>>> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
>>> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.
>>
>>You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
>
> A slightly different tack...
>
> I personallly don't agree with cyclists being licensed as such...

No, nor me.

> but
> what worries me is the number of bikes which overtake me with
> mis-aligned gears (I'm an engineer.. so that sort of thing really
> peeves me).
>
> The next question is how good are the brakes, what care / checks do
> they do before each ride?
>
> If the insurance people said you can have a big x% off your premium if
> for example
>
> - you completed a recognosied cycling course
> - you had an "mot"
>
> Maybe it be better for those who actually care?

Very good points. I commend them to the house :-) Would you consider a
similar intelligent scheme could be appropriate for motorists in place of
the current compulsion to pay lip service to training and vehicle safety?

>>What about pedestrians?
>
> A a recent convert... in my limited experience pedestrians exhibit
> brownian motion.. and hence go in any random direction :o)

:-)

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
>> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes, cars,
>> or whatever) into
>> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to be
>> allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in our
>> private and/or public lives :-)
>
> There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than driving a
> car.

So do we agree that we need a just abd suitable way of dealing with them,
which _may_ include no licences?

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Tony W" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >
>>> > I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I
>>> > see nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.
>>>
>>> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his
>>> reference to "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle
>>> types, so concluded that to have a licence revoked would imply
>>> having one in the first place. Sorry if I confused you ;-)
>>
>> No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a
>> licence (its
>> quite simple really).
>
> But, if the will was there, and licences were deemed appropriate, I am
> sure the politicians could find a way ;-)
>
>> However, one could take out an injunction banning the
>> seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike
>
> What about those who are not _seriously_ dangerous, but have committed
> a handfull of minor rule transgressions in a given period of time?

Thing is, someone who has committed 'a handfull of minor rule
transgressions' in a vehicle weighing over a ton and capable of over
100 Km/h is '_seriously_ dangerous'. Someone who has done the same on a
vehicle weighing fifteen kilogrammes and capable of 30Km/h if it's
lucky (OK, 50Km/h down hill) is not.

Which is why it's appropriate to license (and to revoke the licences of)
the former, but not the latter.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> in message >, Matt B
>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of
>>>> license to drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time.
>>>> Causing death with a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic
>>>> manslaughter charge.
>>>
>>> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
>>> What about pedestrians?
>>
>> When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the
>> idea of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a
>> serious road safety problem. Motorists do.
>
> Some may. It's all relative.

A ton is 'relative' to 15Kg, certainly. It's 66 times as much. That is,
for impacts of the same speed, 66 times as much kinetic energy
(ignoring the kinetic energy of the rider/driver, which is the same in
both cases). It doesn't matter _how_ bad the rider is, a bicycle does
not have enough kinetic energy to be a serious road safety problem.
Similarly, no matter how good the driver is, a car does have enough
kinetic energy to be a very serious road safety problem.

When people drive cars which weigh under 15Kg and have similar
performance envelopes to pedal cycles, I'll agree with you. Until then,
you're talking ****e.

> What we possibly need is mutual respect, and an even playing field.

Indeed. And that 'even playing field' either means vehicles of the same
weight with the same performance envelope, or it means giving
substantial priority to the lower powered, less massive vehicles.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
>>> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes, cars,
>>> or whatever) into
>>> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to be
>>> allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in our
>>> private and/or public lives :-)
>>
>> There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than
>> driving a car.
>
> So do we agree that we need a just abd suitable way of dealing with
> them, which _may_ include no licences?

No. It appropriate to license very dangerous things, or else ban them
altogether. I'm not in favour of banning cars - but note that
hand-guns, which used to kill far fewer people each year than cars, are
now altogether banned in Scotland. So banning cars altogether is not an
outrageous idea.

But I do think the terms of license should be much stricter than they
are, and that if you lose your license for dangerous driving, that
should be that for the rest of your life.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Tony W" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > I think that is a bit of a jump from what Simon actually wrote. I
>>>> > see nothing to suggest he is in favour of licensing cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his
>>>> reference to "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle
>>>> types, so concluded that to have a licence revoked would imply
>>>> having one in the first place. Sorry if I confused you ;-)
>>>
>>> No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a
>>> licence (its
>>> quite simple really).
>>
>> But, if the will was there, and licences were deemed appropriate, I am
>> sure the politicians could find a way ;-)
>>
>>> However, one could take out an injunction banning the
>>> seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike
>>
>> What about those who are not _seriously_ dangerous, but have committed
>> a handfull of minor rule transgressions in a given period of time?
>
> Thing is, someone who has committed 'a handfull of minor rule
> transgressions' in a vehicle weighing over a ton and capable of over
> 100 Km/h is '_seriously_ dangerous'.

In what way, if we assume that the fact that they are _minor_ rules,
discounts them being particularly dangerous.

> Someone who has done the same on a
> vehicle weighing fifteen kilogrammes and capable of 30Km/h if it's
> lucky (OK, 50Km/h down hill) is not.

What about if the pedal cylist had committed one or more "_seriously_
dangerous" actions?

> Which is why it's appropriate to license (and to revoke the licences of)
> the former, but not the latter.

You may say, but, you know what I'd say.

I guess my sticking point is the generalisation that motorists are presumed
to be _always_ dangerous and that other road users are presumed to be
_never_ dangerous.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> in message >, Matt B
>>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>>>>>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of
>>>>> license to drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time.
>>>>> Causing death with a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic
>>>>> manslaughter charge.
>>>>
>>>> You would support the idea of cyclists having to be licensed then.
>>>> What about pedestrians?
>>>
>>> When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the
>>> idea of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a
>>> serious road safety problem. Motorists do.
>>
>> Some may. It's all relative.
>
> A ton is 'relative' to 15Kg, certainly. It's 66 times as much.

Yes, simple physics. However, the "relative" to which I am referring is to
do with the judgement of when a licence is required. Motor vehicles may be
involved in more "accidents" than pedal cycles, yes, an absolute fact maybe,
but it doesn't imply that _all_ motorists are inherently more dangerous than
_all_ cyclists. The motor vehicle has more potential to do harm that a
pedal cycle, because of its greater mass and greater speed potential, yes,
but that still doesn't imply that _all_ motorists are therefore dangerous.

> That is,
> for impacts of the same speed, 66 times as much kinetic energy
> (ignoring the kinetic energy of the rider/driver, which is the same in
> both cases). It doesn't matter _how_ bad the rider is, a bicycle does
> not have enough kinetic energy to be a serious road safety problem.

That is an unsupportable assertion. The act of "dangerous pedal cycling"
may result in car swerving off the road into the path of a packed high speed
train.

> Similarly, no matter how good the driver is, a car does have enough
> kinetic energy to be a very serious road safety problem.

Yes, but all that statement does is support a case to require pedal cyclists
to have a licence. It says that if there is potential for danger the,
controller (driver), not matter how good, has to be licenced. The
distinction is the relative potentials. The subjective judgement is where
the line is drawn.

> When people drive cars which weigh under 15Kg and have similar
> performance envelopes to pedal cycles, I'll agree with you. Until then,
> you're talking ****e.

Some mopeds weigh less than some pedal cycles, and have lower speed
potential. Who needs a licence in this case?

>> What we possibly need is mutual respect, and an even playing field.
>
> Indeed. And that 'even playing field' either means vehicles of the same
> weight with the same performance envelope, or it means giving
> substantial priority to the lower powered, less massive vehicles.

I was thinking more in terms of education and responsibilities.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
>>>> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes, cars,
>>>> or whatever) into
>>>> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to be
>>>> allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in our
>>>> private and/or public lives :-)
>>>
>>> There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than
>>> driving a car.
>>
>> So do we agree that we need a just abd suitable way of dealing with
>> them, which _may_ include no licences?
>
> No. It appropriate to license very dangerous things, or else ban them
> altogether.

Define "very dangerous".

> I'm not in favour of banning cars - but note that
> hand-guns, which used to kill far fewer people each year than cars, are
> now altogether banned in Scotland.

Yet gun crime is on the increase? Do you believe that cars are only owned,
as a gun is, to threaten/kill with?

> So banning cars altogether is not an
> outrageous idea.

It is.

> But I do think the terms of license should be much stricter than they
> are, and that if you lose your license for dangerous driving, that
> should be that for the rest of your life.

And ban the use of _any_ vehicle?

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> in message >, Matt B
>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
>>>>> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes,
>>>>> cars, or whatever) into
>>>>> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to
>>>>> be allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in
>>>>> our private and/or public lives :-)
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than
>>>> driving a car.
>>>
>>> So do we agree that we need a just abd suitable way of dealing with
>>> them, which _may_ include no licences?
>>
>> No. It appropriate to license very dangerous things, or else ban them
>> altogether.
>
> Define "very dangerous".

Things which cause over a thousand preventable deaths per year, perhaps?

>> But I do think the terms of license should be much stricter than they
>> are, and that if you lose your license for dangerous driving, that
>> should be that for the rest of your life.
>
> And ban the use of _any_ vehicle?

Why ban the use of vehicles which are not dangerous?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a licence
> > (its
> > quite simple really).
>
> But, if the will was there, and licences were deemed appropriate, I am
sure
> the politicians could find a way ;-)

Yes -- Blair & Clarke are probably now looking at new ways to restrict our
freedoms.

> > However, one could take out an injunction banning the
> > seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike
>
> What about those who are not _seriously_ dangerous, but have committed a
> handfull of minor rule transgressions in a given period of time?

Motorists don't get points for minor offences like parking -- only for
seriously dangerous offences such as speeding. Why do you want different
rules for cyclists (as if we didn't know!!)

> > -- but its unlikely that you
> > could make a case to do this more than once a year on average.
>
> What out for the multiple minor offences?

Oh, OK -- 10 times a year.

It is very difficult to kill someone when riding a bike -- and surely you
would want the punishment to be commensurate with the risk inflicted on the
unwary.

T

[Tony W]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...


> > When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the idea
> > of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a serious
> > road safety problem. Motorists do.
>
> Some may. It's all relative. There are some pedal cyclists who are more
> dangerous than some motorists,

Highly unlikely. It is difficult to kill or inflict serious injury with a
bike -- as proved by the relatively low numbers of 'third party' people
killed or seriously injured in cycling accidents.

> and some motorists who are more dangerous
> than some pedal cyclists.

Understatemnet -- all motorists are dangerous. Energy = 1/2 mass *
velocity^2. That energy is far larger for motorists 1) becuase they are
sitting in a couple of tonnes of metal and 2) because their velocity is
potentially higher. Energy causes damage in accidents.

> Indeed, someone who is a _very_ poor motorist,
> and treats the system, and other users with contempt, and who has had his
> motor driving licence revoked, can get onto a pedal cycle and continue
with
> his habit uninhibited.

But with two major constraints. 1) the energy they have available to cause
injury is much lower and 2) their little tush is on the line -- in accidents
between a cyclist and a motor vehicle it is rarely the driver that ends up
dead.

T

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> I guess my sticking point is the generalisation that motorists are
> presumed to be always dangerous and that other road users are presumed
> to be never dangerous.

OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing substantially
less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in excess of 15Km/h
are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as much kinetic energy
as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would have to be going at
122Km/h, which isn't very likely.

But yes, I'd be prepared to agree that pedal cycles capable of in excess
of 120Km/h ought to be licensed.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> in message >, Matt B
>>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, with the incentives, training, and "road marshalls" I've
>>>>>> discussed above we could kick the idea of licences (for bikes,
>>>>>> cars, or whatever) into
>>>>>> touch once and for all. After all, we don't need a "licence" to
>>>>>> be allowed to do other more dangerous or more important things in
>>>>>> our private and/or public lives :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing more dangerous that most people _ever_ do than
>>>>> driving a car.
>>>>
>>>> So do we agree that we need a just abd suitable way of dealing with
>>>> them, which _may_ include no licences?
>>>
>>> No. It appropriate to license very dangerous things, or else ban them
>>> altogether.
>>
>> Define "very dangerous".
>
> Things which cause over a thousand preventable deaths per year, perhaps?

An arbitrary number then? At 1000, you'd have to licence "householding".
In 2002 there were 3541 "accidental" deaths in and around the home.

>>> But I do think the terms of license should be much stricter than they
>>> are, and that if you lose your license for dangerous driving, that
>>> should be that for the rest of your life.
>>
>> And ban the use of _any_ vehicle?
>
> Why ban the use of vehicles which are not dangerous?

Exactly. I'm glad we agree there. We now need a robust definition of
"dangerous".

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...

> Why do you want different
> rules for cyclists

Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road users, and I
want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not prejudice.

> (as if we didn't know!!)

Describe what you think you know!

--
Matt B

[p.k.]

Matt B wrote:
>
> What about random checks, like breath tests, if roadmanship
> incompetence is evident? Penalty points and on-the-spot fines being
> available for dishing out to those who fail.


Including for cyclists like the one yesterday who, with neither signal nor
look behind, changed from travelling along the road normally to 45% across
and onto the opposite pavement forcing a not-quite-emergency stop from me
that tested my seat belt - if I had not been a "cyclist aware" driver wary
of the actions of typical London PoB's i might well have hit him.

pk

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> hand-guns, which used to kill far fewer people each year than cars,
> are now altogether banned in Scotland. So banning cars altogether is
> not an outrageous idea.


A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two
years after the weapons were banned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm



pk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:14:36 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
>are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing substantially
>less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in excess of 15Km/h
>are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as much kinetic energy
>as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would have to be going at
>122Km/h, which isn't very likely.

Up to a point. The rider has mass too, y'know.

So actually the speed for a cyclist to match the KE of a car at 15
km/h is probably closer to 60km/h.

A key difference being how much it is likely to hurt the respective
vehicle operators should they fail to avoid Johnny Ped; this will
quite possibly influence their tolerance for passing close to same (or
indeed failing to brake).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[chris harrison]

Matt B wrote:
> "Tony W" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Why do you want different
>>rules for cyclists
>
>
> Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road users, and I
> want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not prejudice.

So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic energy
and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
inter-related)?

If safety is a basis for rules (which is a reasonable point) the ability
to do more damage more easily in a motorised vehicle in comparison to a
manually powered one must, therefore, predicate all the rules which will
then apply to both.

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> > When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the
>> > idea
>> > of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a serious
>> > road safety problem. Motorists do.
>>
>> Some may. It's all relative. There are some pedal cyclists who are more
>> dangerous than some motorists,
>
> Highly unlikely.

You therefore believe that the most dangerous pedal cyclist is safer than
the safest motorist. How can a sensible debate be based on that premise?

> It is difficult to kill or inflict serious injury with a
> bike -- as proved by the relatively low numbers of 'third party' people
> killed or seriously injured in cycling accidents.

Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible, so don't we need to _ensure_ cyclists
take their responsibility seriously?

>> and some motorists who are more dangerous
>> than some pedal cyclists.
>
> Understatemnet -- all motorists are dangerous.
> Energy = 1/2 mass *
> velocity^2. That energy is far larger for motorists 1) becuase they are
> sitting in a couple of tonnes of metal and 2) because their velocity is
> potentially higher. Energy causes damage in accidents.

Yes, there is more _potential_, but correctly harnessed not necessarily more
danger.

>> Indeed, someone who is a _very_ poor motorist,
>> and treats the system, and other users with contempt, and who has had his
>> motor driving licence revoked, can get onto a pedal cycle and continue
> with
>> his habit uninhibited.
>
> But with two major constraints. 1) the energy they have available to
> cause
> injury is much lower and 2) their little tush is on the line -- in
> accidents
> between a cyclist and a motor vehicle it is rarely the driver that ends up
> dead.

Like I've said elsewhere the cyclist's actions may lead to a lorry going
into a school bus queue. The cyclist has the same potential as any motorist
to cause death and destruction.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> > No. Since cyclists use the road as of right they do not need a licence
>> > (its
>> > quite simple really).
>>
>> But, if the will was there, and licences were deemed appropriate, I am
> sure
>> the politicians could find a way ;-)
>
> Yes -- Blair & Clarke are probably now looking at new ways to restrict our
> freedoms.

:-)

>> > However, one could take out an injunction banning the
>> > seriously dangerous cyclist from using a bike
>>
>> What about those who are not _seriously_ dangerous, but have committed a
>> handfull of minor rule transgressions in a given period of time?
>
> Motorists don't get points for minor offences like parking -- only for
> seriously dangerous offences such as speeding.

They get points for offences less to do with road safety than that!

> Why do you want different rules for cyclists (as if we didn't know!!)

[answered separately]

>> > -- but its unlikely that you
>> > could make a case to do this more than once a year on average.
>>
>> What out for the multiple minor offences?
>
> Oh, OK -- 10 times a year.
>
> It is very difficult to kill someone when riding a bike -- and surely you
> would want the punishment to be commensurate with the risk inflicted on
> the
> unwary.

I want you to realise that a cyclist can cause as much mayhem as a motorist.
Our (collective) safety depends on _all_ road users behaving in a
responsible manner.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> I guess my sticking point is the generalisation that motorists are
>> presumed to be always dangerous and that other road users are presumed
>> to be never dangerous.
>
> OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
> are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing substantially
> less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in excess of 15Km/h
> are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as much kinetic energy
> as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would have to be going at
> 122Km/h, which isn't very likely.
>
> But yes, I'd be prepared to agree that pedal cycles capable of in excess
> of 120Km/h ought to be licensed.

You're still assuming the pedal cyclist cannot trigger a chain reaction by
his poor roadmanship.

--
Matt B

[p.k.]

Matt B wrote:
>>>> When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the
>>>> idea
>>>> of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a
>>>> serious road safety problem. Motorists do.
>>>
>>> Some may. It's all relative. There are some pedal cyclists who
>>> are more dangerous than some motorists,
>>
>> Highly unlikely.


remind me of the incident discussed here some time ago concerning a chap on
a bike downhill at 30ish and a chap walked out in - one of them was killed I
can't remember which.

pk

[Matt B]

"chris harrison" > wrote in message
.. .
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Tony W" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Why do you want different
>>>rules for cyclists
>>
>> Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road users,
>> and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not prejudice.
>
> So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic energy

No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.

> and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
> inter-related)?

I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.

> If safety is a basis for rules (which is a reasonable point) the ability
> to do more damage more easily in a motorised vehicle in comparison to a
> manually powered one must, therefore, predicate all the rules which will
> then apply to both.

No. It is the _cause_ of the accident, not the vehicle of the causer that
is key.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"p.k." > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:

Poor attribution. I'll correct it for you.

[Simon Brooke wrote:]
>>>>> When cyclists kill thousands of people every year, I'll support the
>>>>> idea
>>>>> of cyclists being licensed. The fact is, cyclists do not pose a
>>>>> serious road safety problem. Motorists do.

[Matt B wrote:]
>>>> Some may. It's all relative. There are some pedal cyclists who
>>>> are more dangerous than some motorists,

[Tony W wrote:]
>>> Highly unlikely.

> remind me of the incident discussed here some time ago concerning a chap
> on a bike downhill at 30ish and a chap walked out in - one of them was
> killed I can't remember which.

Yes, your example supports my assertion: "There are some pedal cyclists who
>>>> are more dangerous than some motorists."

--
Matt B

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Just zis Guy,
you know? ') wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:14:36 +0100, Simon Brooke
> > wrote:
>
>>OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
>>are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing
>>substantially less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in
>>excess of 15Km/h are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as
>>much kinetic energy as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would
>>have to be going at 122Km/h, which isn't very likely.
>
> Up to a point. The rider has mass too, y'know.

Yes, I know :-) But 1 ton is also a very low mass for a modern car. Even
if you add in the mass of the rider, the difference in relative mass is
so great that a bike would have to travel at Tour-de-France-descending-
the-Alps type speeds to equal the kinetic energy of an ordinary family
car legally passing a primary school in a 'traffic calming' area.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "chris harrison" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> "Tony W" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Why do you want different
>>>>rules for cyclists
>>>
>>> Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road
>>> users, and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not
>>> prejudice.
>>
>> So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic
>> energy
>
> No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.

That's simply ridiculous. Given equal skill, care, and attention, a
vehicle weighing 1 ton travelling at 100Km/h is very greatly more
dangerous than a vehicle weighing all up under 100Kg travelling at
25Km/h. Remember, kinetic energy increases with the square of speed.

>> and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
>> inter-related)?
>
> I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.

Then you're a fool.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> I guess my sticking point is the generalisation that motorists are
>>> presumed to be always dangerous and that other road users are
>>> presumed to be never dangerous.
>>
>> OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
>> are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing
>> substantially less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in
>> excess of 15Km/h are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as
>> much kinetic energy as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would
>> have to be going at 122Km/h, which isn't very likely.
>>
>> But yes, I'd be prepared to agree that pedal cycles capable of in
>> excess of 120Km/h ought to be licensed.
>
> You're still assuming the pedal cyclist cannot trigger a chain
> reaction by his poor roadmanship.

Yup, absolutely. As a driver, I don't excuse my bad driving on the basis
of other people's. If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be
clear, and all that. The poor roadmanship of the cyclist may be a
nuisance, but there is no such thing as a 'chain reaction' in road
accidents. A pushbike cannot physically push a truck into a bus queue;
if the truck hits the bus queue, that's the truck driver's
responsibility.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "chris harrison" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> "Tony W" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Why do you want different
>>>>>rules for cyclists
>>>>
>>>> Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road
>>>> users, and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not
>>>> prejudice.
>>>
>>> So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic
>>> energy
>>
>> No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.
>
> That's simply ridiculous. Given equal skill, care, and attention, a
> vehicle weighing 1 ton travelling at 100Km/h is very greatly more
> dangerous than a vehicle weighing all up under 100Kg travelling at
> 25Km/h. Remember, kinetic energy increases with the square of speed.

That is not always relevant though is it. What is the difference, say,
between a motorist and a cyclist failing to stop at a red light if the
consequences, not directly involving the vehicle of the offender, are the
same (could cause a bus to swerve onto the pavement for example)?

>>> and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
>>> inter-related)?
>>
>> I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.
>
> Then you're a fool.

Think it through logically and dispassionately.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, Matt B
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess my sticking point is the generalisation that motorists are
>>>> presumed to be always dangerous and that other road users are
>>>> presumed to be never dangerous.
>>>
>>> OK, let's define it: things weighing a ton moving in excess of 15Km/h
>>> are always dangerous. Equally, of course, things weighing
>>> substantially less than a ton and moving at speeds substantially in
>>> excess of 15Km/h are always dangerous, but for a bicycle to have as
>>> much kinetic energy as a one ton car moving at 15Km/h the bike would
>>> have to be going at 122Km/h, which isn't very likely.
>>>
>>> But yes, I'd be prepared to agree that pedal cycles capable of in
>>> excess of 120Km/h ought to be licensed.
>>
>> You're still assuming the pedal cyclist cannot trigger a chain
>> reaction by his poor roadmanship.
>
> Yup, absolutely. As a driver, I don't excuse my bad driving on the basis
> of other people's. If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be
> clear, and all that.

Yes, but if you can, yet the action of someone else still causes you to
swerve into the oncoming traffic?

> The poor roadmanship of the cyclist may be a
> nuisance, but there is no such thing as a 'chain reaction' in road
> accidents.

FCOL, use your imagination!

> A pushbike cannot physically push a truck into a bus queue;

No, but, if, say, one on the footpath nudges a woman with a pushchair
towards a road, and the driver of a bus passing slowly bye imagines the
woman is about to push the pushchair out right in front of him, and he
swerves violently rather than crushing the kid, into the path of an oncoming
lorry, which then swerves into a bus queue...

> if the truck hits the bus queue, that's the truck driver's
> responsibility.

Not necessarily.

--
Matt B

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>. The poor roadmanship of the cyclist
> may be a nuisance, but there is no such thing as a 'chain reaction'
> in road accidents.

what absolute complete and utter rubbish!

Cyclist swerves suddenly to the right to access an upcoming right turn
without indicating as car is overtaking legitimately and correctly. Driver
brakes, skids and hits car coming opposite way.


The mental and liguistuistic gyrations that some people go through to defend
the "Bicycle good - Everything else Bad" mindset astonishes me.



pk

[Jon Senior]

Matt B wrote:
> Oh dear, another judgement call :-)

That's the nature of road use I'm afraid. You can be trained / taught a
great many things, but you do need to work out for yourself what you're
going to do.

As a datapoint. On an upright, I filter through to the ASL if I can.
Partly because if I'm riding the fixer it gives me room to trackstand.
Mainly because I'm not met a car in town that I can't outsprint to
20mph! ;-) When they catch me, they can pass.

On the bent, I am neither narrow enough or agile enough to do so, so I
tend to adopt a central position behind whichever vehicle is in front of
me, thus creating my own temporary cycle box.

Jon

[p.k.]

JLB wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>> hand-guns, which used to kill far fewer people each year than cars,
>>> are now altogether banned in Scotland. So banning cars altogether is
>>> not an outrageous idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the
>> two years after the weapons were banned
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
>
> Yet because there is, of course, no control group for such data sets,
> this observation is meaningless.
>
> Without the ban on handguns, the use of them in crime might have risen
> by any amount at all, or might have fallen. Nobody knows if the ban
> made a difference. Nobody knows if it was beneficial or not. The fact
> it rose tells us precisely zilch.

Correct. Therefore neither is it valid to call evidence on hand gun banning
as relevant to the current discussion.

pk

[AndyM]

Recently there have been a spate of tendentious and highly tedious
threads, this included, that start off as loosely cycling related, then
morph into 'road safety' issues. The common denominator has been a
'Matt B'.
So Matt B as this is 'supposed' to be a forum for people sharing their
cycling experiences, etc. would you care to indulge us with some tales
of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike (like
a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc. ;-)).

AndyM


Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
> > "chris harrison" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> Matt B wrote:
> >>> "Tony W" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>Why do you want different
> >>>>rules for cyclists
> >>>
> >>> Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road
> >>> users, and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not
> >>> prejudice.
> >>
> >> So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic
> >> energy
> >
> > No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.
>
> That's simply ridiculous. Given equal skill, care, and attention, a
> vehicle weighing 1 ton travelling at 100Km/h is very greatly more
> dangerous than a vehicle weighing all up under 100Kg travelling at
> 25Km/h. Remember, kinetic energy increases with the square of speed.
>
> >> and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
> >> inter-related)?
> >
> > I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.
>
> Then you're a fool.
>
> --
> (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> Error 1109: There is no message for this error

[Mark McNeill]

Response to AndyM:
> Recently there have been a spate of tendentious and highly tedious
> threads, this included, that start off as loosely cycling related, then
> morph into 'road safety' issues. The common denominator has been a
> 'Matt B'.
> So Matt B as this is 'supposed' to be a forum for people sharing their
> cycling experiences, etc. would you care to indulge us with some tales
> of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike (like
> a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc. ;-)).

I suspect that with *that* young gentleman, the most innocent question
about e.g. cycle touring would probably lead within about a day to the
Obvious Conclusion that cyclists should be compulsorily MOTed, and that
anybody who disagreed must have Confused Themselves. ;-)


--
Mark, UK

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind."

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:20:43 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:10:04 +0100, Matt B >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his reference
> >> to "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types
> >> (yes, including pedal cycles), so concluded that to have a licence
> >> revoked would imply having one in the first place. Sorry if I
> >> confused you ;-)
> >
> > And you term pedestrians as drivers of their shoes, presumably?
>
> If you think your shoes are vehicles then who am I to argue ;-) Do you
> think a pedal cycle is a vehicle?

You're in danger of drifting into a fight with a straw man. I never
suggested a pedal cycle was not a vehicle, and for you to imply that I
believe that tends to suggest you know your argument is logically
shaky.

I think a Boeing 747 is a vehicle, but that doesn't mean I assumed the
reference to drivers included people in charge of them.

'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:20:43 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:10:04 +0100, Matt B >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We were discussing "road users" in general so I assumed his
>> >> reference
>> >> to "Dangerous driving" included "drivers" of all vehicle types
>> >> (yes, including pedal cycles), so concluded that to have a licence
>> >> revoked would imply having one in the first place. Sorry if I
>> >> confused you ;-)
>> >
>> > And you term pedestrians as drivers of their shoes, presumably?
>>
>> If you think your shoes are vehicles then who am I to argue ;-) Do you
>> think a pedal cycle is a vehicle?
>
> You're in danger of drifting into a fight with a straw man. I never
> suggested a pedal cycle was not a vehicle, and for you to imply that I
> believe that tends to suggest you know your argument is logically
> shaky.

Couldn't be further from the truth really.

> I think a Boeing 747 is a vehicle, but that doesn't mean I assumed the
> reference to drivers included people in charge of them.

But they aren't included because we were talking about "road users".

> 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
> normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.

Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road users",
in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists are included.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"AndyM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Recently there have been a spate

Two?

> of tendentious and highly tedious threads,

Participation is, of course, optional ;-)

> this included, that start off as loosely cycling related,

i.e. safety.

> then morph into 'road safety' issues.

Broader issues, presumably, as the only two I've started have been pure
cycling safety issues.

> The common denominator has been a
> 'Matt B'.

You know how to make a newcomer feel welocome don't you :-(

Attempting to discuss relatively mundane safety issues concisely and
impartially here is a bit like trying to get Ronnie Corbet to infill with a
short joke.

Within a handfull of posts the subject explodes into a multitude of
unrelated sub-threads.

> So Matt B as this is 'supposed'

Can you point me to the group's charter?

> to be a forum for people sharing their
> cycling experiences, etc.

You don't think safety is an important and relevant cycling issue?

> would you care to indulge us with some tales
> of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike

Possibly, one day, but I'll worry about the more important stuff first :-)

> (like a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc.
> ;-)).

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
> > normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.
>
> Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road users",
> in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists are included.

No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
but to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man
territory. I never claimed "road users" does not include cyclists, I
claimed "drivers" does not include cyclists. You are misrepresenting
what I said again.

'Drivers' does not normally include those persons responsible for
piloting pedal cycles. It _especially_ does not include those
piloting pedal cyclists on this newsgroup, where, by its nature, it is
rare to want to make generalisations about every single road user as a
single group.

In those rare circumstances, as you implicitly agree above, the term
used is 'road users'.

That is, even your own usage above makes it clear that generally, and
generally on this group, "drivers" and "road users" are not synonymous
labels. Your subsequent implications that I have suggested
otherwise continue to demonstrate that your stated case does not
actually stand scrutiny.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Buck]

On 06/02/2005 15:27:15 Ian Smith > wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:

>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
>>> normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.

>> Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road
>> users", in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists are
>> included.

> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users", but
> to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man territory. I
> never claimed "road users" does not include cyclists, I claimed "drivers"
> does not include cyclists. You are misrepresenting what I said again.

> 'Drivers' does not normally include those persons responsible for piloting
> pedal cycles. It _especially_ does not include those piloting pedal
> cyclists on this newsgroup, where, by its nature, it is rare to want to
> make generalisations about every single road user as a single group.

> In those rare circumstances, as you implicitly agree above, the term used
> is 'road users'.

> That is, even your own usage above makes it clear that generally, and
> generally on this group, "drivers" and "road users" are not synonymous
> labels. Your subsequent implications that I have suggested otherwise
> continue to demonstrate that your stated case does not actually stand
> scrutiny.

> regards, Ian SMith

What was the question again?
--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

[p.k.]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
>>> normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.
>>
>> Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road
>> users", in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists
>> are included.
>
> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
> but to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man
> territory. I never claimed "road users" does not include cyclists, I
> claimed "drivers" does not include cyclists. You are misrepresenting
> what I said again.
>
> 'Drivers' does not normally include those persons responsible for
> piloting pedal cycles. It _especially_ does not include those
> piloting pedal cyclists on this newsgroup, where, by its nature, it is
> rare to want to make generalisations about every single road user as a
> single group.
>
> In those rare circumstances, as you implicitly agree above, the term
> used is 'road users'.
>
> That is, even your own usage above makes it clear that generally, and
> generally on this group, "drivers" and "road users" are not synonymous
> labels. Your subsequent implications that I have suggested
> otherwise continue to demonstrate that your stated case does not
> actually stand scrutiny.


Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen as a
vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.

In that sence and context Matt was on solid ground.

pk

[Matt B]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
>> > normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.
>>
>> Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road
>> users",
>> in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists are included.
>
> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
> but to "drivers".

I can assure you we _were_ discussing road users, I found the problem
though. In the bit of thread prior to this bit I said:

"Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?"

The subsequent poster then adopted the word "driver" rather than my "road
user". That'll be where the confusion arose.

> Once more, you are setting off into straw man territory.

Not by design, but because of the substitution mid-thread (not by me) of
"driver" for "road user".

> I never claimed "road users" does not include cyclists, I
> claimed "drivers" does not include cyclists. You are misrepresenting
> what I said again.

See above explanation.

> 'Drivers' does not normally include those persons responsible for
> piloting pedal cycles.

Although, IIRC, is is used that way in acts of parliament.

> It _especially_ does not include those
> piloting pedal cyclists on this newsgroup, where, by its nature, it is
> rare to want to make generalisations about every single road user as a
> single group.
>
> In those rare circumstances, as you implicitly agree above, the term
> used is 'road users'.

Yes, which is where we started.

> That is, even your own usage above makes it clear that generally, and
> generally on this group, "drivers" and "road users" are not synonymous
> labels. Your subsequent implications that I have suggested
> otherwise continue to demonstrate that your stated case does not
> actually stand scrutiny.

Yes, a wire got crossed somewhere.

So, back to the original question then:
"Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?"

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On 06/02/2005 15:27:15 Ian Smith > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
>> wrote:
>
>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>>>> 'Driver' does not, in normal parlance, include cyclists, who are, in
>>>> normal parlance, referred to as cyclists.
>
>>> Literally, yes, but, in the generic sense, when referring to "road
>>> users", in a cycling newsgroup, we can surely assume that cyclists are
>>> included.
>
>> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
>> but
>> to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man territory.
>> I
>> never claimed "road users" does not include cyclists, I claimed "drivers"
>> does not include cyclists. You are misrepresenting what I said again.
>
>> 'Drivers' does not normally include those persons responsible for
>> piloting
>> pedal cycles. It _especially_ does not include those piloting pedal
>> cyclists on this newsgroup, where, by its nature, it is rare to want to
>> make generalisations about every single road user as a single group.
>
>> In those rare circumstances, as you implicitly agree above, the term used
>> is 'road users'.
>
>> That is, even your own usage above makes it clear that generally, and
>> generally on this group, "drivers" and "road users" are not synonymous
>> labels. Your subsequent implications that I have suggested otherwise
>> continue to demonstrate that your stated case does not actually stand
>> scrutiny.
>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
> What was the question again?

"Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?"

--
Matt B

[Richard]

p.k. wrote:
> Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen as a
> vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.

On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle
users on the road. Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a
right to be there; motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.

R.

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>> Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>> educating, and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?
>
> Yup. Dangerous driving, immediate and permanent revocation of license to
> drive. Driving without license, automatic jail time. Causing death with
> a motor (or indeed any other) vehicle, automatic manslaughter charge.

We need to do this bit again, I missed the sublty of the substitution of
"road user" with "driver" (thanks to Ian Smith for picking me up on that)
:-)

Why did you disregard the term "road users" and switch the subject to
"driving" (and get me into trouble in the meantime)?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Richard" . address.uk>
wrote in message ...
> p.k. wrote:
>> Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen as
>> a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>
> On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle users
> on the road.

Legally maybe, but morally?

> Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;

What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
cyclists)?

> motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.

Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?

--
Matt B

[Buck]

On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:

> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?

Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

[David Martin]

Buck wrote:
> On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:
>
> > Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>
> Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.
>

Being pedantic, all road users have equal rights, except those that are
age or disability limited. We do not discriminate based on someones
chosen form of transport. Any road user, subject to meeting age and
disability requirements, has the right to apply for a license to use a
motor vehicle on the road. Any road user has the right to use the road
for passing and repassing subject to the restrictions placed on the
manner of travel on that road.

So if you are legally on the road, you have as much right to it as
anyone else legally on the road. There is no legal 'pecking order' of
road users.

However, as has been pointed out, different regulations apply to
different forms of transport. Cyclists are not in th emain affected by
speed limits, either through practical reasons, or (more usually)
through speed limits being set for motor vehicles and not cycles. There
are some other regulations that are specific to motor vehicles (access
restrictions on some roads prohibit road users from taking motorised
vehicles on those roads, but these restrictions do not apply to taking
non-motorised bicycles.)

All in all, there are less regulations on using cycles on the road
comapred to cars as teh need for regulation is less.

...d

[Buck]

On 06/02/2005 16:29:46 "David Martin" > wrote:



> However, as has been pointed out, different regulations apply to different
> forms of transport. Cyclists are not in th emain affected by speed
> limits, either through practical reasons, or (more usually) through speed
> limits being set for motor vehicles and not cycles.

Some of us have no problems exceeding 30mph in town. :-)
--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

[chris harrison]

Matt B wrote:
> "chris harrison" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why do you want different
>>>>rules for cyclists
>>>
>>>Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road users,
>>>and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not prejudice.
>>
>>So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic energy
>
>
> No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.

In part, yes; in total, no.

>>and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
>>inter-related)?
>
>
> I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.

Then open your mind a little wider and imagine.

>>If safety is a basis for rules (which is a reasonable point) the ability
>>to do more damage more easily in a motorised vehicle in comparison to a
>>manually powered one must, therefore, predicate all the rules which will
>>then apply to both.
>
>
> No. It is the _cause_ of the accident, not the vehicle of the causer that
> is key.

And if the cause of the accident is because the vehicle is more powerful?

[p.k.]

Buck wrote:
> On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:
>
>> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical
>> differences?
>
> Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.

With the advent of 20mph zones in towns that is a moot point. Wimbledon town
centre - 20mph limit. (actually I can't remember if this is current or
proposed but the point stands) it is perfectly possible to do 30mph plus on
a cycle down the hill and over 20mph into the town centre.

That SHOULD be equally illegal for bikes and cars as the issue is pedestrian
safety.

pk

[Dave Larrington]

Matt B wrote:
> "Richard"
> . address.uk> wrote
> in message ...
>> p.k. wrote:
>>> Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be
>>> seen as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>
>> On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle
>> users on the road.
>
> Legally maybe, but morally?
>
>> Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be
>> there;
>
> What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
> cyclists)?
>
>> motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>
> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?

Licences can be revoked a great deal more easily than rights.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
They came for Dani Behr; I said: "she's over there, behind the
wardrobe".

[Matt B]

"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Richard"
>> . address.uk> wrote
>> in message ...
>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>> Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be
>>>> seen as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle
>>> users on the road.
>>
>> Legally maybe, but morally?
>>
>>> Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be
>>> there;
>>
>> What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
>> cyclists)?
>>
>>> motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>>
>> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>
> Licences can be revoked a great deal more easily than rights.

Is that the _only_ difference?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"p.k." > wrote in message
...
> Buck wrote:
>> On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:
>>
>>> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical
>>> differences?
>>
>> Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.
>
> With the advent of 20mph zones in towns that is a moot point. Wimbledon
> town centre - 20mph limit. (actually I can't remember if this is current
> or proposed but the point stands) it is perfectly possible to do 30mph
> plus on a cycle down the hill and over 20mph into the town centre.
>
> That SHOULD be equally illegal for bikes and cars as the issue is
> pedestrian safety.

IIRC, 20 mph limits cannot be enforced for motor vehicles either!

--
Matt B

[Buck]

On 06/02/2005 17:00:49 "p.k." > wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:

>>> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?

>> Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.

> With the advent of 20mph zones in towns that is a moot point. Wimbledon
> town centre - 20mph limit. (actually I can't remember if this is current
> or proposed but the point stands) it is perfectly possible to do 30mph
> plus on a cycle down the hill and over 20mph into the town centre.

> That SHOULD be equally illegal for bikes and cars as the issue is
> pedestrian safety.

> pk
That would be a case of causing endangerment, which cyclists are subject to.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

[Matt B]

"chris harrison" > wrote in message
.. .
> Matt B wrote:
>> "chris harrison" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tony W" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Why do you want different
>>>>>rules for cyclists
>>>>
>>>>Have you read my posts? I want the _same_ rules for _all_ road users,
>>>>and I want those rules squarely grounded in safety, not prejudice.
>>>
>>>So the rules will be in part based on their size, speed, kinetic energy
>>
>> No, on the necessity of due skill, care, and attention.
>
> In part, yes; in total, no.

So some rules should vary by vehicle size/weight (yes I know speed limits
currently vary by vehicle type)?

>>>and ability to do damage to others (which are not the same, but are
>>>inter-related)?
>>
>> I cannot see any difference in the potential to cause damage.
>
> Then open your mind a little wider and imagine.

Now, that's something you cannot accuse _me_ of, having a closed mind and/no
no imagination :-)

Now, tell me what you can achieve with a motor vehicle that couldn't be
_caused_ by an errant cyclist.

>>>If safety is a basis for rules (which is a reasonable point) the ability
>>>to do more damage more easily in a motorised vehicle in comparison to a
>>>manually powered one must, therefore, predicate all the rules which will
>>>then apply to both.
>>
>>
>> No. It is the _cause_ of the accident, not the vehicle of the causer
>> that is key.
>
> And if the cause of the accident is because the vehicle is more powerful?

Can you suggest a scenario?

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:50:46 +0100, Matt B > wrote:
> "Buck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 06/02/2005 15:27:15 Ian Smith > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >
> >> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
> >> but to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man
> >> territory. I never claimed "road users" does not include
> >> cyclists, I claimed "drivers" does not include cyclists. You are
> > misrepresenting what I said again.
> >
> > What was the question again?
>
> "Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
> and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?"

No, more misrepresentation.

The specific question was whether it is reasonable for the term
"drivers" (as in teh proposal that drivers be liable to having tehir
driving licences removed) to be taken as encompassing cyclists (since
it was Matt's asserion that the proposal to enforce confiscation of
license from DRIVERS would require that cyclists be licensed).

That he has subsequently only managed to repeatedly evade and
misrepresent merely demonstrates that teh original assertion (that
'drivers' would reasonably be taken to include cyclists) is
unsupportable. If otherwise, why has he not supported the assertion?
If otherwise, why has he repeatedly attacked various assertions that
have not been made?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:50:46 +0100, Matt B >
> wrote:
>> "Buck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 06/02/2005 15:27:15 Ian Smith > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:22:42 +0100, Matt B >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >
>> >> No, we can not. In particular, we were not referring to "road users",
>> >> but to "drivers". Once more, you are setting off into straw man
>> >> territory. I never claimed "road users" does not include
>> >> cyclists, I claimed "drivers" does not include cyclists. You are
>> > misrepresenting what I said again.
>> >
>> > What was the question again?
>>
>> "Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
>> educating,
>> and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?"
>
> No, more misrepresentation.

Thank you. I'll attempt not to be forced off the path of true righteousness
too :-)

> The specific question was whether it is reasonable for the term
> "drivers" (as in teh proposal that drivers be liable to having tehir
> driving licences removed) to be taken as encompassing cyclists (since
> it was Matt's asserion that the proposal to enforce confiscation of
> license from DRIVERS would require that cyclists be licensed).
>
> That he has subsequently only managed to repeatedly evade and
> misrepresent merely

WHAT!!! You cheeky so'n'so.

> demonstrates that teh original assertion (that
> 'drivers' would reasonably be taken to include cyclists) is
> unsupportable.

Whoa. That is all based on your completely false previous assumption.

> If otherwise, why has he not supported the assertion?

Check the other thread branches.

> If otherwise, why has he repeatedly attacked various assertions that
> have not been made?

Ditto.

--
Matt B

[JLB]

Matt B wrote:
> "Richard" . address.uk>
> wrote in message ...
>
>>p.k. wrote:
>>
>>>Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen as
>>>a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>
>>On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle users
>>on the road.
>
>
> Legally maybe, but morally?

What on earth do you mean? Rights in this context are legal. What has
morality to do with it?

>>Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;
>
>
> What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
> cyclists)?
>
Again, what do you mean? Do you require a full explanation of the legal
and constitutional position?
>
>>motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>
>
> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?

Of course; the licence holder is required to observe the terms of the
licence.

Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Buck wrote:
>
>What was the question again?

"Matt B, troll or what?" ?

[JLB]

p.k. wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
>>On 06/02/2005 16:06:30 "Matt B" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical
>>>differences?
>>
>>Yes, cyclists are not subject to the speed limits.
>
>
> With the advent of 20mph zones in towns that is a moot point. Wimbledon town
> centre - 20mph limit. (actually I can't remember if this is current or
> proposed but the point stands) it is perfectly possible to do 30mph plus on
> a cycle down the hill and over 20mph into the town centre.
>
> That SHOULD be equally illegal for bikes and cars as the issue is pedestrian
> safety.

An ordinary motor car has a mass that is about 15 to 20 times the mass
of an ordinary rider and bike. A car is also bigger and wider, so more
difficult to dodge.

The number of pedestrians killed by cars each year is hundreds of times
more than the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists (typically 0 or 1
a year).

If, as you say, the criteria is pedestrian safety it is obvious the law
should be much more severe in respect of motor vehicles. And funnily
enough, so it is, at least in theory.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Matt B]

"JLB" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Richard" . address.uk>
>> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>p.k. wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen
>>>>as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>>
>>>On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle users
>>>on the road.
>>
>> Legally maybe, but morally?
>
> What on earth do you mean? Rights in this context are legal.

Yes, which is why I said "but morally?". Do I need to spell it out? We
accept (subject to the question below) that certain road users have certain
legal rights. My follow up question is... Do you think that the road users
with more legal rights also have more moral rights where road use is
concerned.

> What has morality to do with it?

It is an interesting aside, given that just laws should also be moral laws.

>>>Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;
>>
>> What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
>> cyclists)?
>>
> Again, what do you mean? Do you require a full explanation of the legal
> and constitutional position?

Yes, or at least a reference to it.

>>>motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>>
>>
>> Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>
> Of course; the licence holder is required to observe the terms of the
> licence.

Yes, but assuming they do? Do they then have equal "legal rights" to use
the road?

> Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
> yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?

They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to endanger
other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of the answers to
some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you think?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Alan Braggins" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Buck wrote:
>>
>>What was the question again?
>
> "Matt B, troll or what?" ?

It must be "what" then.

What are you frightened of?

--
Matt B

[JLB]

Matt B wrote:
> "JLB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>"Richard" . address.uk>
>>>wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>p.k. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen
>>>>>as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle users
>>>>on the road.
>>>
>>>Legally maybe, but morally?
>>
>>What on earth do you mean? Rights in this context are legal.
>
>
> Yes, which is why I said "but morally?". Do I need to spell it out? We
> accept (subject to the question below) that certain road users have certain
> legal rights. My follow up question is... Do you think that the road users
> with more legal rights also have more moral rights where road use is
> concerned.
>
I cannot see the connection. It's like asking "Do those with more shoes
have more geraniums?"
>
>>What has morality to do with it?
>
>
> It is an interesting aside, given that just laws should also be moral laws.
>
Bleeding hell.
>
>>>>Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;
>>>
>>>What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
>>>cyclists)?
>>>
>>
>>Again, what do you mean? Do you require a full explanation of the legal
>>and constitutional position?
>
>
> Yes, or at least a reference to it.

I know this group is fairly eclectic in its range of discussions, but
you might be better off trying a group where this is on topic.

>
>>>>motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>>>
>>>
>>>Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>>
>>Of course; the licence holder is required to observe the terms of the
>>licence.
>
>
> Yes, but assuming they do? Do they then have equal "legal rights" to use
> the road?
>
Everyone has the same legal rights. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

"[t]he law in its infinite majesty, prohibits rich and poor alike from
stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." - Anatole France

"Be you ever so high, the law is above you" - Thomas Fuller (and Lord
Denning)

>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>
>
> They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
> road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to endanger
> other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of the answers to
> some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you think?

I think you have probably taken your adventures in catalysis of
discussion about as far as is prudent, if you don't want to cause annoyance.




--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "JLB" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>
>
> They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
> road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to endanger
> other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of the answers to
> some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you think?

They are only discussion catalysts if you are prepared to enter into a
discussion, and listen, interpret and understand what is being said to
you. You do none of these. You spend your time in what I can only
guess is a misguided attempt to make yourself look smart, but sadly end
up looking like a complete twonk. Your style of "discussion" is less
mature than that of my 13 year olds. You can't apparently be bothered
finding things out for yourself even when they're matters of fact or
law. You ask an interminable series of stupid an asinine questions in
what is presumably a wasted attempt to demonstrate how intelligent and
contemplative you are, and you show the interpretive skill of a moron.

When you get back to school next week, please leave us alone and come
back when you've grown up a bit. The only illumination you have
provided is of yourself, and the result has been far from flattering.

--
Trevor Barton

[Tony Raven]

AndyM wrote:
> Recently there have been a spate of tendentious and highly tedious
> threads, this included, that start off as loosely cycling related, then
> morph into 'road safety' issues. The common denominator has been a
> 'Matt B'.
> So Matt B as this is 'supposed' to be a forum for people sharing their
> cycling experiences, etc. would you care to indulge us with some tales
> of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike (like
> a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc. ;-)).
>

A number of us have killfiled him but that still results in the replies
coming through. Good advice is don't wrestle with a pig; you just get
dirty but the pig enjoys it.

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

[Matt B]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> AndyM wrote:
>> Recently there have been a spate of tendentious and highly tedious
>> threads, this included, that start off as loosely cycling related, then
>> morph into 'road safety' issues. The common denominator has been a
>> 'Matt B'.
>> So Matt B as this is 'supposed' to be a forum for people sharing their
>> cycling experiences, etc. would you care to indulge us with some tales
>> of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike (like
>> a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc. ;-)).
>>
>
> A number of us have killfiled him but that still results in the replies
> coming through. Good advice is don't wrestle with a pig; you just get
> dirty but the pig enjoys it.

If you can't counter the arguments and aren't prepared to accept the logic
and justice of mine fine, don't participate, but why be unpleasant?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Mark McNeill" > wrote in message
...
> Response to AndyM:
>> Recently there have been a spate of tendentious and highly tedious
>> threads, this included, that start off as loosely cycling related, then
>> morph into 'road safety' issues. The common denominator has been a
>> 'Matt B'.
>> So Matt B as this is 'supposed' to be a forum for people sharing their
>> cycling experiences, etc. would you care to indulge us with some tales
>> of your cycle touring or commuting or recent purchase of new bike (like
>> a certain gentleman with an origami bike, fold, unfold, fold etc. ;-)).
>
> I suspect that with *that* young gentleman, the most innocent question
> about e.g. cycle touring would probably lead within about a day to the
> Obvious Conclusion that cyclists should be compulsorily MOTed, and that
> anybody who disagreed must have Confused Themselves. ;-)

You always choose to disregard the more obvious conclusion :-) If you
disagree with my points counter them, but it's this continuous repetition of
unsubstantiated assertions and "we told you befores" that leads to the long
tedious threads.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"JLB" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "JLB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Richard" . address.uk>
>>>>wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>p.k. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen
>>>>>>as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle
>>>>>users on the road.
>>>>
>>>>Legally maybe, but morally?
>>>
>>>What on earth do you mean? Rights in this context are legal.
>>
>> Yes, which is why I said "but morally?". Do I need to spell it out? We
>> accept (subject to the question below) that certain road users have
>> certain legal rights. My follow up question is... Do you think that the
>> road users with more legal rights also have more moral rights where road
>> use is concerned.
>>
> I cannot see the connection. It's like asking "Do those with more shoes
> have more geraniums?"

LOL. A legal right doesn't imply a moral right. Do you disagree?

>>>What has morality to do with it?
>>
>> It is an interesting aside, given that just laws should also be moral
>> laws.
>>
> Bleeding hell.

Do you believe all legal rights are sacrosanct?

>>>>>Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;
>>>>
>>>>What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
>>>>cyclists)?
>>>>
>>>Again, what do you mean? Do you require a full explanation of the legal
>>>and constitutional position?
>>
>> Yes, or at least a reference to it.
>
> I know this group is fairly eclectic in its range of discussions, but you
> might be better off trying a group where this is on topic.

You assert cyclists have more rights than motorists, is it unreasonable to
ask for a reference?

>>>>>motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>>>>
>>>>Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>>>
>>>Of course; the licence holder is required to observe the terms of the
>>>licence.
>>
>> Yes, but assuming they do? Do they then have equal "legal rights" to use
>> the road?
>>
> Everyone has the same legal rights. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

Convergence, good.

>>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>>
>> They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
>> road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to
>> endanger other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of
>> the answers to some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you
>> think?
>
> I think you have probably taken your adventures in catalysis of discussion
> about as far as is prudent, if you don't want to cause annoyance.

The emerging conclusions are uncomfortable to the cycling orthodoxy?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "JLB" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>>
>> They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
>> road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to
>> endanger other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of
>> the answers to some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you
>> think?
>
> They are only discussion catalysts if you are prepared to enter into a
> discussion, and listen, interpret and understand what is being said to
> you.

And vice-versa? That is where the main problem is. Incessant "I/We told
you before" assertions with false, or more often no, supportable logic.

> You do none of these. You spend your time in what I can only guess
> is a misguided attempt to make yourself look smart, but sadly end up
> looking like a complete twonk.

Thanks for that confidence boost.

> Your style of "discussion" is less mature
> than that of my 13 year olds.

Do you allow them to develop opinions, and defend them?

> You can't apparently be bothered finding
> things out for yourself even when they're matters of fact or law.

Assertions need to be referenced.

> You ask
> an interminable series of stupid an asinine questions in what is
> presumably a wasted attempt to demonstrate how intelligent and
> contemplative you are,

You're obsessed. If you don't ask "black and white" questions you get
deliberately evasive replies.

> and you show the interpretive skill of a moron.

I don't swallow the prejudiced unsupported assertions, no.

> When you get back to school next week, please leave us alone and come back
> when you've grown up a bit. The only illumination you have provided is of
> yourself, and the result has been far from flattering.
> --
> Trevor Barton

That is an unecessary slur which I'll leave in to your eternal shame.

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>"JLB" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>>>
>>>They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
>>>road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to
>>>endanger other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of
>>>the answers to some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you
>>>think?
>>
>>They are only discussion catalysts if you are prepared to enter into a
>>discussion, and listen, interpret and understand what is being said to
>>you.
>
>
> And vice-versa? That is where the main problem is. Incessant "I/We told
> you before" assertions with false, or more often no, supportable logic.

You couldn't recognise logic if it came and slapped you round the gills.
The only reason there are incessant "we told you before" assertions,
you dope, is that you apparently *have* to be told things, over and over
again because you're seemingly too bloody stupid, too full of your own
self importance, and too keen on the sound of your own voice, to take it
all in the first time.

>>You do none of these. You spend your time in what I can only guess
>>is a misguided attempt to make yourself look smart, but sadly end up
>>looking like a complete twonk.
>
>
> Thanks for that confidence boost.

You're welcome. Calling you a complete twonk was *too* kind, but
children other than you read this group too.

>>Your style of "discussion" is less mature
>>than that of my 13 year olds.
>
>
> Do you allow them to develop opinions, and defend them?

Yes. They are quite capable of doing that. You, on the other hand, do
neither.

>>You can't apparently be bothered finding
>>things out for yourself even when they're matters of fact or law.
>
> Assertions need to be referenced.

Ok, reference that? Where does it say that? Can you give me a
reference that states that assertions have to be referenced? Dope.
Oh, I just made a assertion. In reference, I point to the vast majority
of your preceding posts.

>>You ask
>>an interminable series of stupid an asinine questions in what is
>>presumably a wasted attempt to demonstrate how intelligent and
>>contemplative you are,
>
>
> You're obsessed. If you don't ask "black and white" questions you get
> deliberately evasive replies.

Obsessed with what? And I want a reference. Part of your problem is
that you seem to think that every reply you get is deliberately evasive.
It comes back to you know recognising logic, you see, even when you're
slapped round the gills with it.

>>and you show the interpretive skill of a moron.
>
>
> I don't swallow the prejudiced unsupported assertions, no.

If you thought a bit about the stuff you are trying to interpret, you
might find that some of the stuff you call prejudiced unsupported
assertion is not. That wouldn't suit your purpose, though, would it,
it's far easier to bash out the first reply that pops into your tiny
little mind and to keep yourself in the center of things.

>>When you get back to school next week, please leave us alone and come back
>>when you've grown up a bit. The only illumination you have provided is of
>>yourself, and the result has been far from flattering.
>>--
>>Trevor Barton
>
>
> That is an unecessary slur which I'll leave in to your eternal shame.

Unnecessary? So, I take it the others were, in your view, necessary?
Well, there you go then, we reach partial agreement at last! Or is it
just that you didn't recognise them as slurs? As for "my eternal
shame", once again you're elevating your own view of your self
importance. What makes you think I give that vaguest of tosses?

Tata, twonk.

--
Trevor Barton

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>>
[...]
>> And vice-versa? That is where the main problem is. Incessant "I/We told
>> you before" assertions with false, or more often no, supportable logic.
>
> You couldn't recognise logic if it came and slapped you round the gills.
> The only reason there are incessant "we told you before" assertions, you
> dope, is that you apparently *have* to be told things, over and over again
> because you're seemingly too bloody stupid, too full of your own self
> importance, and too keen on the sound of your own voice, to take it all in
> the first time.

"Fallacy: argumentum ad nauseum" is the technical term I think you'll find.

[...]
>> Assertions need to be referenced.
>
> Ok, reference that? Where does it say that? Can you give me a reference
> that states that assertions have to be referenced?

Here is a good place to start:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=logical+fallacies+assertion&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=20&sa=N

On the otherhand perhaps this will give you the answer _you_ were looking
for:
http://www.enseeiht.fr/~queinnec/proof.html

[...]

--
Matt B

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Matt B wrote:
>"Alan Braggins" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Buck wrote:
>>>
>>>What was the question again?
>>
>> "Matt B, troll or what?" ?
>
>It must be "what" then.
>
>What are you frightened of?

Frightened? Like pizza? Why not join the Non Sequitor Appreciation
Society then?

[Matt B]

"Alan Braggins" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt B wrote:
>>"Alan Braggins" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, Buck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>What was the question again?
>>>
>>> "Matt B, troll or what?" ?
>>
>>It must be "what" then.
>>
>>What are you frightened of?
>
> Frightened? Like pizza? Why not join the Non Sequitor Appreciation
> Society then?

And learn the art from all the other uk.r.c contributors there? ;-)

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>>And vice-versa? That is where the main problem is. Incessant "I/We told
>>>you before" assertions with false, or more often no, supportable logic.
>>
>>You couldn't recognise logic if it came and slapped you round the gills.
>>The only reason there are incessant "we told you before" assertions, you
>>dope, is that you apparently *have* to be told things, over and over again
>>because you're seemingly too bloody stupid, too full of your own self
>>importance, and too keen on the sound of your own voice, to take it all in
>>the first time.
>
>
> "Fallacy: argumentum ad nauseum" is the technical term I think you'll find.

No, that'd only be a good description of your so-called argument if you
were actually presenting one, rather than asking an interminable series
of stupid an asinine questions.

Wake up, lad, and realise the stiff thing in your hand isn't your ego.
Then go figure what to do with it. Google might help you there, too.

--
Trevor Barton

[JLB]

Matt B wrote:
[snip]
> but it's this continuous repetition of
> unsubstantiated assertions and "we told you befores" that leads to the long
> tedious threads.

You have this back to front. It's the endless repetition of the same
questions by people who do not pay attention or check what has already
been discussed that leads to long tedious threads. If you receive a
"told you before" reply, you should ask yourself why you had not
realised you were going around in circles and feel some shame for
wasting the time of anyone else reading the thread.

Some good work has been done on a FAQ here. There is also no bar on
anyone using Google to search previous posts. If people made
conscientious use of these it would cut the volume of posts here
tremendously, and also improve the quality and interest of what is posted.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[JLB]

Matt B wrote:
> "JLB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>"JLB" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Richard" . address.uk>
>>>>>wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>p.k. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cyclists here and elswehere often claim a desire for cycles to be seen
>>>>>>>as a vehilce like any other road vehicle, with the same rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On the contrary, cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle
>>>>>>users on the road.
>>>>>
>>>>>Legally maybe, but morally?
>>>>
>>>>What on earth do you mean? Rights in this context are legal.
>>>
>>>Yes, which is why I said "but morally?". Do I need to spell it out? We
>>>accept (subject to the question below) that certain road users have
>>>certain legal rights. My follow up question is... Do you think that the
>>>road users with more legal rights also have more moral rights where road
>>>use is concerned.
>>>
>>
>>I cannot see the connection. It's like asking "Do those with more shoes
>>have more geraniums?"
>
>
> LOL. A legal right doesn't imply a moral right. Do you disagree?
>
What do you think? Can you not reason? Do you have any opinions? Are you
being irritating?
>
>>>>What has morality to do with it?
>>>
>>>It is an interesting aside, given that just laws should also be moral
>>>laws.
>>>
>>
>>Bleeding hell.
>
>
> Do you believe all legal rights are sacrosanct?

Does anybody care? What has that do with cycling?
>
>
>>>>>>Cyclists (and pedestrians, and horse riders) have a right to be there;
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the machinery that states/asserts that right (especially for
>>>>>cyclists)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, what do you mean? Do you require a full explanation of the legal
>>>>and constitutional position?
>>>
>>>Yes, or at least a reference to it.
>>
>>I know this group is fairly eclectic in its range of discussions, but you
>>might be better off trying a group where this is on topic.
>
>
> You assert cyclists have more rights than motorists, is it unreasonable to
> ask for a reference?

Look through all preceding discussions and decide for yourself.
>
>
>>>>>>motor vehicle users are permitted only by license.
>>>>>
>>>>>Having obtained a licence though, are there any practical differences?
>>>>
>>>>Of course; the licence holder is required to observe the terms of the
>>>>licence.
>>>
>>>Yes, but assuming they do? Do they then have equal "legal rights" to use
>>>the road?
>>>
>>
>>Everyone has the same legal rights. Everyone is subject to the same laws.
>
>
> Convergence, good.
>
>
>>>>Do you really find these questions you ask too difficult to answer for
>>>>yourself, or are you just ****-stirring?
>>>
>>>They are discussion catalysts. Road safety is a responsibilty that _all_
>>>road users should take seriously. None of us have the "right" to
>>>endanger other road users. The ideas and attitudes exposed in some of
>>>the answers to some of my questions are quite illuminating, don't you
>>>think?
>>
>>I think you have probably taken your adventures in catalysis of discussion
>>about as far as is prudent, if you don't want to cause annoyance.
>
>
> The emerging conclusions are uncomfortable to the cycling orthodoxy?

No, your attempts at imposing your didactic methods on this newsgroup
suggest you feel a sense of mission that is presumptuous.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Trevor Barton]

JLB wrote:
>
> No, your attempts at imposing your didactic methods on this newsgroup
> suggest you feel a sense of mission that is presumptuous.

I suspect there might be too many big words in there for the numpty.

--
Trevor Barton

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> JLB wrote:
>>
>> No, your attempts at imposing your didactic methods on this newsgroup
>> suggest you feel a sense of mission that is presumptuous.
>
> I suspect there might be too many big words in there for the numpty.

I just looked back at your contribution to this discussion. What did I
find? Nothing but negativity and personal abuse.

Your chance to shine: What's your advice about using ASL zones?

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JLB wrote:
>>
>>>No, your attempts at imposing your didactic methods on this newsgroup
>>>suggest you feel a sense of mission that is presumptuous.
>>
>>I suspect there might be too many big words in there for the numpty.
>
>
> I just looked back at your contribution to this discussion.

You're a bit sad, then, aren't you? If you'd been paying attention in
class you'd not have had to look back.

> What did I
> find? Nothing but negativity and personal abuse.

Oh dear, then tell on me to Daddy. I bet your Dad's bigger than my Dad,
too. Still, better personal abuse than assive stupidity. Argument and
reason haven't had any effect on you, because you don't appear to
recognise it for what it is. At least you do recognise personal abuse,
perhaps because it's not the first time you've been on the receiving
end. And what can we learn from that, class?

> Your chance to shine: What's your advice about using ASL zones?

It's OK, thanks, I don't feel the need to contribute to your education
in any way whatsoever - all the advice I'd give you (apart from **** off
and leave the grown ups alone) has already been given to you over and
over again, I don't see that another repetition is going to get it into
the thick space between your ears.

Now, write out one hundred times:

"Asking an interminable series of stupid an asinine questions in no way
makes me seem intelligent"

Tata, lad.

--
Trevor Barton

[JohnB]

Matt B wrote:

> Your chance to shine: What's your advice about using ASL zones?

Why are you asking this _again_ ?

What has been wrong with the advice you have already been given?

John B

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>JLB wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, your attempts at imposing your didactic methods on this newsgroup
>>>>suggest you feel a sense of mission that is presumptuous.
>>>
>>>I suspect there might be too many big words in there for the numpty.
>>
>> I just looked back at your contribution to this discussion.
>
> You're a bit sad, then, aren't you? If you'd been paying attention in
> class you'd not have had to look back.
>
>> What did I find? Nothing but negativity and personal abuse.
>
> Oh dear, then tell on me to Daddy. I bet your Dad's bigger than my Dad,
> too. Still, better personal abuse than assive stupidity. Argument and
> reason haven't had any effect on you, because you don't appear to
> recognise it for what it is. At least you do recognise personal abuse,
> perhaps because it's not the first time you've been on the receiving end.
> And what can we learn from that, class?

I can't really understand what I've done to upset you, but you're making a
right monkey of yourself.

Your first abusive and foul-mouthed attack came whilst I was trying to find
out in what
circumstances a PP would apply their advice not to give signals.

Your second abusive reply came whilst I was testing the validity of the
assertion "cyclists have *more* rights than all motor vehicle users on the
road" made by another poster. This was followed by another in response to
my reply.

Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.

Calm down. If you don't like what you hear offer a well reasoned challenge.
Don't present yourself as a ranting imbecile.

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.

You silly silly *silly* little boy. You've never challenged my logic,
because I've not made any attempt to bother using any with you. You
see, that's just your problem, you think you're "challenging logic",
when all you are doing is making yourself look silly. Not only *don't*
you recognise what it is you do that seems to upset people here, but
you're so wrapped up in yourself and your own self importance that you
think blatant abuse is some sort of attempt at logic.

> Calm down. If you don't like what you hear offer a well reasoned challenge.
> Don't present yourself as a ranting imbecile.

ROTFL! Like I need advice from a dope of your ilk! Try giving me some
when you grow up a but, lad. If you don't like what I say about you,
ignore it, don't present yourself as more of a moron.

Oh, I forgot ...

--
Trevor Barton

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:38:28 +0100, JohnB > wrote in
message >:

>Why are you asking this _again_ ?

You know what children are like - they keep asking until they get the
answer they want.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.
>
> You silly silly *silly* little boy. You've never challenged my logic,

Look back again.

> because I've not made any attempt to bother using any with you.

Which was my challenge - to your illogical, ill thought out, wild attacks on
my argument.

> You see, that's just your problem, you think you're "challenging logic",
> when all you are doing is making yourself look silly. Not only *don't*
> you recognise what it is you do that seems to upset people here, but
> you're so wrapped up in yourself and your own self importance that you
> think blatant abuse is some sort of attempt at logic.

Illogical blatant abuse. I rest my case.

>> Calm down. If you don't like what you hear offer a well reasoned
>> challenge.
>> Don't present yourself as a ranting imbecile.
>
> ROTFL! Like I need advice from a dope of your ilk! Try giving me some
> when you grow up a but, lad. If you don't like what I say about you,
> ignore it, don't present yourself as more of a moron.

Dig, dig, dig. Can you still see out over the side?

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.
>>
>>You silly silly *silly* little boy. You've never challenged my logic,
>
>
> Look back again.
>
>
>>because I've not made any attempt to bother using any with you.
>
>
> Which was my challenge - to your illogical, ill thought out, wild attacks on
> my argument.

Oh, I see, you think an attack on you is an attack on your argument?
Don't give your argument that much status, lad! Apart from anything
else, it wasn't an argument, it was just an interminable series of
stupid an asinine questions, and a refusal to listen to many of the
answers. That's not an argument, dope. That's *why* you've ****ed
people off here.

Sigh. You've not even been bothering to read and understand my posts
for what they are, let alone the ones from other people that deal with
your "argument". It's a completely pointless waste of bytes and
bandwidth, you can't even flame properly (I assume you know that that
means?), and you're getting very repetitious. Try to think of something
more witty that "Dig Dig Dig" for this one, eh? Otherwise I won't
bother responding, 'cause it's too easy and you're getting boring.

Tata laddie

--
Trevor Barton

[Matt B]

"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>>Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.
>>>
>>>You silly silly *silly* little boy. You've never challenged my logic,
>>
>> Look back again.
>>
>>>because I've not made any attempt to bother using any with you.
>>
>> Which was my challenge - to your illogical, ill thought out, wild attacks
>> on my argument.
>
> Oh, I see, you think an attack on you is an attack on your argument?

I'm afraid that irrational personal attacks are not what I entered this ng
for, so, although I once thought I'd never need to use it, you become the
first inhabitant _ever_ (in over 10 years of "usenetting") of my killfile.

--
Matt B

[Trevor Barton]

Matt B wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>"Trevor Barton" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Then you got yourself into a right wedgie when I challenged your logic.
>>>>
>>>>You silly silly *silly* little boy. You've never challenged my logic,
>>>
>>>Look back again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>because I've not made any attempt to bother using any with you.
>>>
>>>Which was my challenge - to your illogical, ill thought out, wild attacks
>>>on my argument.
>>
>>Oh, I see, you think an attack on you is an attack on your argument?
>
>
> I'm afraid that irrational personal attacks are not what I entered this ng
> for, so, although I once thought I'd never need to use it, you become the
> first inhabitant _ever_ (in over 10 years of "usenetting") of my killfile.

Hooray!!! Result then! At last, the dodope's got the picture!

--
Trevor Barton

[Jeremy Parker]

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote

[snip]

> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
feet of
> road??
>
> Cheers, helen s

Well, not exactly, but I think it's sort of the truth at ASLs. It's
a new law, or more probably a regulation, which comes to the same
thing, that came into force, I think, at the beginning of the year.
It was discussed fairly thoroughly on one of the London Cycling
Campaign mailing lists at the time. I don't know whether non members
can read those lists, but they are on yahoo. It was either the
lcc-issues mailing list or LCC-CPEC+. The guy who explained it all,
and I believe him, because he is a barrister, and follows these
things, was Ralph Smyth, borough coordinator of the City branch of
the LCC.

Apparently what happened is that those drafting the law forgot that
not all vehicles are motor vehicles, and drafted the law to say that
if the light was red no **vehicles** can cross the back stop line.
Thus, if the light is red, you can only get into the box at parts of
the road where the stop line is absent. Maybe that would make riding
on the wrong side of the road a possibility.

Jeremy Parker

[Jeremy Parker]

> > The red box is there to highlight a zone for visibility, you
don't move
> > across into it, but you do move forward as far as it's front
edge. This
> > puts you ahead and left of the motorised stuff, so they know
you're there,
> > and you don't get squished by 'artics' that wouldn't be able to
see you if
> > you were alongside them.

If you start off behind an artic', and end up in front of it, won't
you inevitably be alongside it at some time?

Jeremy Parker

[dkahn400]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> > Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the
> > left 3 feet of road??

> Well, not exactly, but I think it's sort of the truth at ASLs.
> It's a new law, or more probably a regulation, which comes to
> the same thing, that came into force, I think, at the beginning
> of the year. It was discussed fairly thoroughly on one of the
> London Cycling Campaign mailing lists at the time. I don't know
> whether non members can read those lists, but they are on yahoo.
> It was either the lcc-issues mailing list or LCC-CPEC+. The
> guy who explained it all, and I believe him, because he is a
> barrister, and follows these things, was Ralph Smyth, borough
> coordinator of the City branch of the LCC.
>
> Apparently what happened is that those drafting the law forgot
> that not all vehicles are motor vehicles, and drafted the law
> to say that if the light was red no **vehicles** can cross the
> back stop line. Thus, if the light is red, you can only get into
> the box at parts of the road where the stop line is absent.
> Maybe that would make riding on the wrong side of the road a
> possibility.

That only covers entry into the box. Once inside it what is to stop a
cyclist occupying any part of it?

--
Dave...

[Jeremy Parker]

"dkahn400" > wrote

[snip]

> That only covers entry into the box. Once inside it what is to stop
a
> cyclist occupying any part of it?

Nothing. What on earth would be the point of stopping a cyclist from
occupying any part of it?

Jeremy Parker

[John Hearns]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:32:06 +0100, Matt B wrote:

>
> Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
> it, and use the road to the right of it?

God help me for replying to this.
Please read the Transport for London report which was recently referenced
to this group. The majority of injuries caused to cyclists are by car
doors
be