(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

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

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

"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

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.

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?

["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|
|/ \|

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:33:03 GMT, (Proper Dave)
wrote:

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?

"remedial English" - ho, ho, ho - you're taking the mickey (but not
very well)


You snipped out the bit where I had said:


No-one has answered the question - was the cyclist aware of the car
behind him? Any ideas?

To which the response was:

There is no requirement for the cyclist to be aware of the car behind.

I was just pointing out that this was in fact incorrect as it clearly
states in the Highway Code: "be aware of traffic coming up behind
you"

This actually contradicts "There is no requirement for the cyclist to
be aware of the car behind."

There - it wasn't too difficult once I explained - was it?

five

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.

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.