|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:13:43 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote: "judith" wrote in message news On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:52:58 +0100, "Clive George" wrote: "judith" wrote in message ... If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. I take it you are not an experienced driver of a motor vehicle. (As an aside as it should be the subject of a separate thread - but your comment indicates the need for cyclists to have some sort of test before they are allowed on roads) bites I think I'm a fairly experienced motor vehicle driver, and I don't see a problem with what Colin wrote. He's covered observation, signalling and the manoeuvre - and all sensibly. What bit don't you understand? Given that his response was to my question: What I don't do if I am in lane 1, and lane 1 and 2 are moving at about the same low speed is cut straight across to lane 3 in order to keep up my own speed - this is what the cyclist effectively did. Question? I see no question there. I think a more pertinent question was which bit did *he* not understand as he did not answer the question posed. Perhaps you could do so? Assuming the question is "would you do such a thing in a car, and would you object to others doing similar", I'll try. Provided I've made suitable observation, ensuring the manoeuvre is safe, and have indicated my intentions appropriately, I'd have no problem with doing that. I'd also have no problem with others doing that. I would therefore assume that you are one of those drivers on motorways who frequently change lane as one lane slows to a slightly faster lane in order to keep up their progress (in their opinion). That is what you have said - did you mean to? There, that was easy wasn't it. There's no safety concerns, so where's the problem? Stock answer - there is no safety concern ("that I can see" is usually missed off as here) ; I know that the HC says that you shouldn't do it; but actually I'm in a hurry and I am a cyclist so therefore I will. |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
"judith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:13:43 +0100, "Clive George" wrote: "judith" wrote in message news On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:52:58 +0100, "Clive George" wrote: "judith" wrote in message m... If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. I take it you are not an experienced driver of a motor vehicle. (As an aside as it should be the subject of a separate thread - but your comment indicates the need for cyclists to have some sort of test before they are allowed on roads) bites I think I'm a fairly experienced motor vehicle driver, and I don't see a problem with what Colin wrote. He's covered observation, signalling and the manoeuvre - and all sensibly. What bit don't you understand? Given that his response was to my question: What I don't do if I am in lane 1, and lane 1 and 2 are moving at about the same low speed is cut straight across to lane 3 in order to keep up my own speed - this is what the cyclist effectively did. Question? I see no question there. I think a more pertinent question was which bit did *he* not understand as he did not answer the question posed. Perhaps you could do so? Assuming the question is "would you do such a thing in a car, and would you object to others doing similar", I'll try. Provided I've made suitable observation, ensuring the manoeuvre is safe, and have indicated my intentions appropriately, I'd have no problem with doing that. I'd also have no problem with others doing that. I would therefore assume that you are one of those drivers on motorways who frequently change lane as one lane slows to a slightly faster lane in order to keep up their progress (in their opinion). That is what you have said - did you mean to? Well, actually it wasn't what I said - the quoted text above confirms that. Your inferences are entirely without basis. You may withdraw them, and if you wish, try to get to your point another way, but as it stands your new question does not warrant an answer, and your previous one has now been answered entirely satisfactorily. There, that was easy wasn't it. There's no safety concerns, so where's the problem? Stock answer - there is no safety concern ("that I can see" is usually missed off as here) ; I know that the HC says that you shouldn't do it; but actually I'm in a hurry and I am a cyclist so therefore I will. Stock "judith" answer - nothing whatsoever corresponding to what has been written nor to real life. clive |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:49:57 +0100, judith
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:43:11 +0100, "Colin Reed" wrote: snip A single manoeuvre to the right to overtake traffic is not "weaving". Your choice of words to imply erratic cycling is becoming tiresome when it has been shown that this was a perfectly normal and safely executed overtake. You are right - it was "perfectly normal" for a cyclist - but it is not in accord with the Highway Code. Here's a couple of quotes from the HC regarding overtaking: stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. signal when it is safe to do so, Are they not applicable to cyclists? Now how about if I just mention words such as "swerve", "dive across", "veer", "cut across" or "skew"? Lets get them all out in advance and see which term you choose next. Sorry - I now understand that the cycling term for crossing two lanes is "filtering" - I believe that this term may defined in the book Cyclecraft - but I am awaiting confirmation - do you know? No it isn't. Filtering is passing stationary traffic in the space between the lanes. It can only be done using a narrow vehicle. (NB MY reference to Cyclecraft doe not mean I endorse it - I prefer to use the law or the HC as a reference) The HC is just a simplified guide to the law and also contains some recommendations. It is by no means the definitive guide to driving. If you ever do any advanced driving/riding courses you will have to go beyond what is printed in the HC. I thoroughly recommend doing this as anyone's driving/riding can improve. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. See http://improve-usenet.org |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
"burtthebike" wrote in message ... "Mad Cliffy's Legs Don't Work" wrote in message ... On Jul 17, 10:53 am, judith wrote: If someone is in a lane marked with a LH turn rather than a straight on/lh turn combined and they go straight on without good reason then they would be partly to blame if something else hit them. This is the bit that the cyclists contributing to this debate don't seem to be able to grasp. Why, unless it's out of sheer bloody-mindedness, would you put your safety at risk by ignoring (usually more than one) six or eight foot big **** off arrow indicating that traffic in that particular lane should be turning left? This "ah well they're only advisory" ******** doesn't cut it I'm afraid. All you are demonstrating is your lack of knowledge of cycling. The behaviour described is *safer* for cyclists not more dangerous, and cyclists are only doing it for their own safety. If anyone knows the Gloucester Road in Bristol heading into town (a popular cyclist route), you'll know the Ashley Down Road junction; at the lights, it's two lanes, left turn and straight on...........so as you go through the lights to go straight on, all of a sudden you get half a dozen cyclists steam through on your inside and then swerve across the front of you because they've rapidly run out of road (having been in the wrong lane to start with). I know that junction very well, cycling through it twice a day, and I've never seen the behaviour you describe. I've seen quite a few drivers who go straight on from the left turn lane, with me on a bike on their RH side in the straight on lane. When I used to use the junction going from Ashley Down Road onto the Glos Rd, I used to keep a count of how many drivers bothered indicating, and it was never more than about 30%. This is a single lane T junction, so it is impossible to tell from road position whether the car is going left or right, but most people just can't be bothered to indicate, despite the fact that other road users need to know which way you're going. As someone else has pointed out, I just wish a few of them would put their hands up and admit that their goal is to get from A to B ASAP and to hell with how they do it. I just wish that some of the hypercritical drivers would get out of their tin cans and find out what it's like to ride a bike in traffic. And yes, I do drive a car. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:21:26 +0100, "Colin Reed"
wrote: "judith" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:10:29 +0100, "Colin Reed" wrote: "judith" wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2008 12:38:20 GMT, Ian Smith wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul, Colin Reed wrote: "judith" wrote in message ... Or - were you wanting to point out the cyclist in the green top who clearly cycles across two lanes of traffic - to apparently overtake on the other carriageway? If you were - then yes - it is another good example of bad cycling. Said cyclist filtered across two lanes of near stationary traffic when it was clearly safe to do so - you can see him glance over his right shoulder to check for any traffic before doing the manoeuvre. Indeed. Apparently she doesn't like traffic moving across a multi-lane carriageway to overtake slower vehicles. Presumably when Judith is driving on the inside lane of the motorway and comes across slower traffic she just sits behind it, regardless of how slow or how clear the other lanes are. A really good analogy - well done. What I don't do if I am in lane 1, and lane 1 and 2 are moving at about the same low speed is cut straight across to lane 3 in order to keep up my own speed - this is what the cyclist effectively did. If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. I take it you are not an experienced driver of a motor vehicle. (As an aside as it should be the subject of a separate thread - but your comment indicates the need for cyclists to have some sort of test before they are allowed on roads) You mean something like a driving test, that would suggest the order of "mirror - signal - manoeuvre", which fairly much describes the order of events I described above? Yes - that would be good - also questions on the HC which many cyclists here seem to be ignorant of. What is the correct position for a cyclist to adopt on the road? Under what circumstances can a cyclist use a Bus Lane? What must you do if a pedestrian is on a zebra crossing as you approach it? What do hashed markings/chevrons painted on a road mean? What does a LH pointing arrow as a road marking mean? How would you overtake safely? Under what circumstances should you not overtake? What do you understand by lane discipline.................................. Now, could you explain what is actually wrong with the manoeuvre I suggested above, without making erroneous assumptions about my motoring experience? There can never be anything wrong with "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" - did I suggest otherwise? The attributions are getting ragged - I assume that you mean the bit If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. It is unnecessary - other than for the selfish view of maintaining your journey time. It is bad driving to do this on a motorway - it is bad cycling for cyclists to do it in the example shown. The HC is quite clear on this. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:43:33 +0100, judith
said in : Cyclecraft is not an authoritative document as I have said many times. Cyclists should follow what it says in the HC - and certainly not what it says in Cyclecraft if they are different. No, you're wrong there. Cyclecraft is the official manual of the National Standards for Cycle Training and was written by experts in cycle safety. The Highway Code was written by the Driving Standards Agency who, at the time of the last revision, demonstrated that they knew the square root of bugger all about cycling. Where the two conflict, I will always follow Cyclecraft. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
"Mark" wrote in message
... The HC is just a simplified guide to the law and also contains some recommendations. I'd go even one further and say it was a booklet highlighting acceptable 'highway' etiquette and only a few of the bullet points are actually a legal requirement(the ones that say 'must' etc). The highway code is indeed superseded by many other literary works, and those are much more beneficial to their specific audience but the HC is always the one people hark back to when pointing out fellow road users indiscretions! -- !Speedy Gonzales! Remove the SPAMTRAP to reply |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
"judith" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:21:26 +0100, "Colin Reed" wrote: "judith" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:10:29 +0100, "Colin Reed" wrote: "judith" wrote in message m... On 16 Jul 2008 12:38:20 GMT, Ian Smith wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul, Colin Reed wrote: "judith" wrote in message ... Or - were you wanting to point out the cyclist in the green top who clearly cycles across two lanes of traffic - to apparently overtake on the other carriageway? If you were - then yes - it is another good example of bad cycling. Said cyclist filtered across two lanes of near stationary traffic when it was clearly safe to do so - you can see him glance over his right shoulder to check for any traffic before doing the manoeuvre. Indeed. Apparently she doesn't like traffic moving across a multi-lane carriageway to overtake slower vehicles. Presumably when Judith is driving on the inside lane of the motorway and comes across slower traffic she just sits behind it, regardless of how slow or how clear the other lanes are. A really good analogy - well done. What I don't do if I am in lane 1, and lane 1 and 2 are moving at about the same low speed is cut straight across to lane 3 in order to keep up my own speed - this is what the cyclist effectively did. If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. I take it you are not an experienced driver of a motor vehicle. (As an aside as it should be the subject of a separate thread - but your comment indicates the need for cyclists to have some sort of test before they are allowed on roads) You mean something like a driving test, that would suggest the order of "mirror - signal - manoeuvre", which fairly much describes the order of events I described above? Yes - that would be good - also questions on the HC which many cyclists here seem to be ignorant of. What is the correct position for a cyclist to adopt on the road? Under what circumstances can a cyclist use a Bus Lane? What must you do if a pedestrian is on a zebra crossing as you approach it? What do hashed markings/chevrons painted on a road mean? What does a LH pointing arrow as a road marking mean? How would you overtake safely? Under what circumstances should you not overtake? What do you understand by lane discipline.................................. Now, could you explain what is actually wrong with the manoeuvre I suggested above, without making erroneous assumptions about my motoring experience? There can never be anything wrong with "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" - did I suggest otherwise? The attributions are getting ragged - I assume that you mean the bit If lanes 1 and 2 are stationary, or very slow, and lane 3 is free flowing, then there is no problem at all in moving into lane 3, so long as there is a suitable gap in the traffic and that you signal your manoeuvre. That is, after all, the reason for having more than one lane. It is unnecessary - other than for the selfish view of maintaining your journey time. It is bad driving to do this on a motorway - it is bad cycling for cyclists to do it in the example shown. The HC is quite clear on this. So you believe that all overtaking should be outlawed - or at least you have stated that all overtaking is unnecessary, since it is almost always overtaking slower traffic for the "selfish view of maintaining your journey time." I have to admit that I've never noticed the bit in the Highway Code which states that overtaking should always be avoided - maybe you could cite it. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:43:33 +0100, judith wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:29:55 +0100, "Colin Reed" wrote: There's the difference between cars and cycles, and the reason that they behave differently in certain traffic situations. It's also the reason why Roadcraft and Cyclecraft are not identical books. Cyclecraft is not an authoritative document as I have said many times. Eh? Last time I let my curiosity get the better of my filters (err, yesterday I think), Judith hadn't heard of cyclecraft, hadn't read it, didn't know what was in it, and was wondering if she could download it for free. This time she's an expert on it, knows its relevance and legal significance and has been gracious enough to share this with her adoring audience "many times". Wow, that's fast work - zero to expert in under 24 hours. Oh well, welcome to usenet, I suppose. [before she starts claiming not to have said things that are a matter of public record, see for example: Message-ID: or, for the technically less capable: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...1cb52741099c9b ] regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:21:26 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:18:59 +0100, Marc wrote: judith wrote: What I (and many motorists) don't like are cyclists continually switching lanes/driving the wrong way round bollards/cycling on hatched areas in order to shave a couple of minutes of a journey time. There is no prohibition on any vehicle using a hatched area. No - but you should not do so unless it is necessary. Getting home in time for tea does not count diatribe on why I ignore the HC and would encourage other road users to do the same snipped |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Motorists ignore mobile phone law | Eric Vey | Social Issues | 0 | March 4th 08 04:20 PM |
mobile phone jammers | Meeba[_11_] | Australia | 13 | December 5th 07 12:14 PM |
Where is a mobile phone :-) | PEO from ITALY | UK | 1 | October 27th 06 08:12 PM |
Mythbusters - mobile phone and car use | Euan | Australia | 40 | October 27th 05 03:02 AM |
Cyclist with mobile phone | Gags | Australia | 2 | August 25th 04 01:12 PM |