A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Routemasters (again)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 3rd 13, 11:53 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Ian Dalziel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:02:34 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been
dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies
everywhere, all the time.


Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition
of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the
junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether
they should be there or not.

Give Way to 'em, in other words...


No, "give way to" is not synonymous with "don't drive into". If
somone is across the line but not blocking your path there is no
obligation for you to stop and let them cross.

--

Ian D
Ads
  #102  
Old August 3rd 13, 11:54 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Ian Dalziel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Routemasters (again)

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:55:47 -0400, "Truebrit"
wrote:


"Truebrit" wrote:
Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the
lights
are in the opposite sequence and are going from green to amber


Judith" wrote:
Oh dear : not bright.


Indeed. :-)
Proof reading never was one of my fortes. Of course the second line should
read from amber to green. I did correct it in a later post.
Truebrit.


They never go from amber to green.

--

Ian D
  #103  
Old August 3rd 13, 12:02 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Routemasters (again)

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip


Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get
me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver.



Spot on - and same here. Unfortunately we seem to be in a minority which is
getting smaller.

  #104  
Old August 3rd 13, 12:08 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, NY wrote:

It was scary to watch the 5th (last) episode of Route Masters (about
London's roads) on BBC1 a couple of weeks ago and see how cyclists seem
to think that the road laws should treat them differently from
engine-powered vehicles.


Of course they shouldn't. Everybody should stick to the HC.

Cyclists were weaving in and out of other
traffic, overtaking first one one side then on the other, right in front
of the eyes of police officers


Umm, yes, and?
Care to tell us which HC rules that's inherently breaking?



Oh - so you think that that sort of action is OK do you?

Many thanks - you have confirmed the point which NY was making.

68
You MUST NOT
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
  #105  
Old August 3rd 13, 12:14 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:08:14 +0100, Judith wrote:

Cyclists were weaving in and out of other traffic, overtaking first
one one side then on the other, right in front of the eyes of police
officers


Umm, yes, and?
Care to tell us which HC rules that's inherently breaking?


Oh - so you think that that sort of action is OK do you?


I haven't seen the programme. But you'll note I explicitly asked
"inherently".

Many thanks - you have confirmed the point which NY was making.

68 You MUST NOT
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner


"Weaving in and out" and "overtaking first one side then the other" are
not _inherently_ dangerous, careless or inconsiderate. They _can_ be,
sure. But they aren't inherently.

****, but just riding in a straight line _can_ be dangerous, careless and/
or inconsiderate.
  #106  
Old August 3rd 13, 12:30 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been
dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies
everywhere, all the time.


Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition
of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the
junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether
they should be there or not.

Give Way to 'em, in other words...


Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all.

  #107  
Old August 3rd 13, 12:53 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Routemasters (again)

In message , Nick Finnigan
writes
On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been
dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies
everywhere, all the time.


Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition
of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the
junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether
they should be there or not.

Give Way to 'em, in other words...


Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all.

Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green
means you may go on if the way is clear"?
--
Ian
  #108  
Old August 3rd 13, 01:23 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default Routemasters (again)


Give Way to 'em, in other words...


No, "give way to" is not synonymous with "don't drive into". If
somone is across the line but not blocking your path there is no
obligation for you to stop and let them cross.


I would interpret "give way to pedestrians who are crossing" (under the
explanation of green in the link provided by adrian) to mean that there
is an obligation for the driver to stop and let them cross.

In fact I think I was taught that you should not drive trough a
pedestrian crossing until all pedestrians had finished crossing, but
maybe that was zebras.

  #109  
Old August 3rd 13, 01:38 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 12:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green means
you may go on if the way is clear"?


Because it is a tautology.
  #110  
Old August 3rd 13, 01:39 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 12:02, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip


Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get
me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver.



Spot on - and same here. Unfortunately we seem to be in a minority which is
getting smaller.


Do either of you ride in bus /cycle lanes then?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.