|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On 19/06/2008 00:34, judith wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:39:40 +0100, Danny Colyer On 18/06/2008 21:52, judith wrote: (I note that no-one has answered my question - was the cyclist aware of the car behind him?) How is this relevant to whether the motorist was at fault for hitting the cyclist? Obviously we can't know, but it's pretty hard for a cyclist (with normal hearing) not to be aware of a car behind him. I am sorry the point escaped you - I was implying that perhaps, just perhaps, the cyclist should have been aware of the car behind him and taken a different action from that which he took - which appears to be bugger on regardless. Assuming the cyclist was aware of the car behind him, the appropriate action would have been to assert his right of way. Ceding right of way in this situation would be unpredictable, and hence dangerous, behaviour. Ceding right of way unnecessarily also carries the risk that motorists will learn to /expect/ cyclists to cede their right of way (as, it appears, this motorist has done), which then endangers the cyclists that the motorist encounters in the future. -- Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis |
Ads |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On 19/06/2008 14:44, _ wrote:
It would be interesting to see a prosecution for action which was not a breaking of a law. Can you provide one? Bonus points for one which resulted in a guilty verdict... Daniel Cadden has been mentioned several times in this thread... -- Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On Jun 19, 4:55*pm, David Hansen
wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mo wrote this:- He wasn't trying to obstruct cars, he was riding in the manner which would normally be safest. Your entitled to your opinion even if it's been shown to be wrong Nice try, but proof by assertion is seldom convincing. That opinion has yet to be shown to be wrong by anyone, which is why it forms one of the planks of cycle riding as expounded in "Cyclecraft". If you wish to offer an opinion on why that opinion is wrong then feel free to do a line by line rebuttal of the appropriate sections of the book. Your assertions will be given a fair hearing by experts on the subject, some of whom inhabit uk.rec.cycling. It's a legal forum, I think I'll quit now |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
"judith" wrote in message
Excellent - exactly my sentiments. Judith, forgive me as I have not read every post as this has become a lengthy thread, but, in your opinion, was the taxi driver correct to drive so close to a cyclist so as to cause the cyclist injury? I understand we like to copy the Americans these days and appoint a share of the blame to both parties involved depending how much their actions contributed to a certain incident. However, it would appear that from reading more than one account of the incident, the cyclist maintained a steady course, the vehicle closed from behind, proceeded to overtake then had to come back in as an island/bollard would impede them from passing. Everything had went well up until this point except now, due to the laws of science, the two vehicles couldn't occupy the same space at the same time so there was what we are now discussing, an incident. For the life of me, I can't see how the taxi driver got away with this. Although I don't agree with it, there has been more than one case up here in Edinburgh where drivers of vehicles have been charged with 'driving without due care etc' after knocking down young children. The kids had no place to be where they were, i.e the road or a private building site, but, there is a massive responsibility in getting behind the wheel of a car and if you do hit a ped/cyclist, you can't just claim that 'they were in your way'. -- !Speedy Gonzales! Remove the SPAMTRAP to reply |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:59:51 +0100, judith
wrote: There will be a couple of cyclists coming along in a minute to tell us that they are correct to ride in what they like to call the primary position Isn't it what the DoT produced book 'Cyclecraft' calls the primary position? - which I understand may be the middle of the lane and result in them obstructing all other traffic. You seem to have an incorrect view of the aims of correct road use. Correct road use involves maximising safety for yourself and other road users at all times. If that causes obstruction to other traffic, so be it. You will find that traffic lights, for example are *extremely* good at obstructing traffic but that is in no way their prime purpose. |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:09:19 +0100, judith
wrote: Oh really - are you saying that obeying the Highway Code is optional for cyclists: Rule 61 be aware of traffic coming up behind you Are you saying you do not understand the difference, in English of the two fragments: "be aware of" and "get out of the way of"? You have already very clearly demonstrated your need of futher instruction in the rules of the road. Perhaps some remedial English classes would not go amiss? |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:09:46 +0100, judith wrote: I am sorry this is not a troll. Simple question: Should cyclists have to take a test before being allowed on the roads? No. Pedestrians don't. Car drivers don't. I don't think motorbike riders need to. Since other major classes of road users that cause both greater and lesser risk to road users in general don't need to take a test, it would be unreasonable to mandate that cyclists should. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:30:17 GMT, "!Speedy Gonzales!"
wrote: "judith" wrote in message Excellent - exactly my sentiments. Judith, forgive me as I have not read every post as this has become a lengthy thread, but, in your opinion, was the taxi driver correct to drive so close to a cyclist so as to cause the cyclist injury? No - he was not correct. In the absence of further evidence - I think that it was a 50-50 situation. I see no good reason why the cyclist did not use the cycle lane - many have posted their views which I disagree with - it is pointless going over old ground again - we will just have to disagree. Did the cyclist wobble? Was the cyclist actually turning right? Did the cyclist hit the side of the car rather than the car hit the cyclist. You cannot tell from the footage. And I will guarantee that the two snapshot examples given have been chosen to present the cyclist in the best possible light. Why does the cyclist not make the cctv recording available rather than a chosen subset? Have a look at the diagram of the road - why has the author chosen to provide a misrepresentation of the actual layout? Can we believe what else he says in the article? I suggest it would be unwise to rely on just his view. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
(Non-) Use of cycling facilities
Ian Smith wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:09:46 +0100, judith wrote: I am sorry this is not a troll. Simple question: Should cyclists have to take a test before being allowed on the roads? No. Pedestrians don't. Car drivers don't. I don't think motorbike riders need to. Since other major classes of road users that cause both greater and lesser risk to road users in general don't need to take a test, it would be unreasonable to mandate that cyclists should. Is that a trick answer to a question that wasn't asked? Drivers and drivers of motor vehicles do have to take and pass a test before being allowed on to the roads even as a learner. The only exceptions to that would be people who got their provisionals before the "theory test" was introduced and who have been learning ever since but never passed a test. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycle facilities increase cycling | LSMike | UK | 19 | November 2nd 07 01:38 AM |
Another facilities own goal | Tony Raven[_2_] | UK | 0 | September 10th 07 08:08 AM |
Facilities and farcilities | Dylan Smith | UK | 1 | July 30th 07 02:47 PM |
Cycle facilities in the FT | Tony Raven[_2_] | UK | 29 | May 5th 07 02:35 PM |
Hampstead Heath - increase cycling facilities? | wheelist | UK | 34 | September 12th 06 05:21 PM |