Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 03:13

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 22:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Ooh - this is a good 'un! :hehe:

:shock:

a campaign [i] aimed at riders who dodge reds :clap:

Wow! :lol: 8-)

So what is it?

Well - it was started by the families of four CHILDREN and one granny who were on a pelican crossing by a PRIMARY SCHOOL in South London last year when they were hit by cyclists :shock:

Funny - this never got one peep of a mention on the cycling sites... Hmm - and we do discuss driving - warts and all... on the "petrol head" sites...

Ah well .. suppose we keen drivers all know the score really then :wink:


Anyway this campaign does have the backing of the London Cycling Cam,paing - police and the local Vauxhall MP Kate Hoey.

So far the campaign reached the Grauniad (Mike Seaton's cycling column - and still silence :shhh: :wink: ) :shock: and yes :wink: - I do recall it being mentioned on the ITN news as well.. once...

Well what happened? The campaigners stated by simply making a number of roadside vigils to raise awareness. They then monitored a number of crossings and found that whilst most drivers actually did - ER - contrary to myth - er well - actually STOP at the red light... 65% of the cyclists simply ignored it. :? :shock: :shock: :shock: :? This even included the ones with the little beep for the blind (or should I say "visually impaired or challenged :? )

This ain't Paul Smith, or any Swiss felines prowling around - nor is anyone bashing anyone :wink: - these are the folks from www.stopatred.org and you can check it all out there. :wink:


Parent Barbara Wesby wrote:

Our children are encouraged :clap: to use the Highway Code :bow: and they can obey the Grren Cross.. so why can't these "adults"
:shock: :shock:

The campaign has inspired York based Cycle Heaven and one Durhan bike shop to wear "Stop at Red " T-shirts :clap: :clap: :bow: :cloud9:

(and very stylish they are too - black :wink: - with a FLUORESCENT - I CAN BE SEEN! :listenup: STOP AT RED (looks a bit like the SS lolly sign :rotfl: ) on the backs. They also have some stickers too, :wink: for cars :wink:

On the web siet - you pledge to stop at red :lol: :lol: :lol: and over 600 have taken the pledge in the last week :bow: - including the MD of Sustrans , the Chair of the Bike Association, and Association of Cylcle Traders - plus CW and Cycle Sport reporters :wink:

So - go on ... get yourselves in great company - and sign up! :wink:







PS Paul - you may find this "Stop At Red" bunch useful as a safety campaign partner . :wink: They are not cam solves everything overall :wink: - but are safety led.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 23:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
So - go on ... get yourselves in great company - and sign up! :wink:

I'd prefer it if your boys indulged in a little nightstick action :whip: I'm sure that would solve the problem far quicker. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 23:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
We do here ! :twisted:

Met had a blitz not so long ago.. Some of the eco-warriors got bit "miffed" :lol:

Quote:

They're pickin' on us Grrrr!


Just cos they got told off...


By the way - per the mag we don't mention and which we still buy :wink:

April issue reports some stuff ...

It seems some cyclist is in doo-dos for some "furious straddling of a white line... [/i] :oops: :oops: :oops:

Look - I know I said "jamming is where we have fun .. " :wink: - but you don't do it where there's a solid or double white :wink: Even if the cars are crawling at 10 mph ..... :wink:

But back to the campaign - I think it's a good move in the right direction. :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 23:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
But back to the campaign - I think it's a good move in the right direction. :wink:

sure is. Not sure if it's the campaign or the cold weather but I've been seeing less people rolling through this past week.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 01:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
The Stop at Red campaign is fundamentally flawed as it focusses purely on cyclists, not on all people who pass lights at red.

The cyclist who -may- be prosecuted for 'inconsiderate cycling' was doing well in excess of 10mph. It appears that the policeman that stopped him did not have a clear understanding of the law. time will tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 02:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
B cyclist wrote:
The Stop at Red campaign is fundamentally flawed as it focusses purely on cyclists, not on all people who pass lights at red.

The cyclist who -may- be prosecuted for 'inconsiderate cycling' was doing well in excess of 10mph. It appears that the policeman that stopped him did not have a clear understanding of the law. time will tell.



But when their survey showed thqat 65% of all riders failed to stop at the red light and 90% of the drivers did stop.. that 's surely telling us something about cycling standards in big cities. :wink:

It is a problem - and whether you like to hear it or not - plenty of cyclists are not exactly squeaky clean when it comes to obeying traffic law. Like drivers - they get pulled if copped "at it" :wink:

They are subject to the same discretion, "attitude test" :wink: , and little chat as well. :evil:

But this campaign is surely a good reminder for some good practice - and should be hailed as the equivalent of "Amber Gambler" :wink:

By the way - police officers do know a little thing or two about the laws - we enforce them. :wink: The "law bit" even features in our exams... :shock: We are supposed to know some stuff... :shock: :P

The officer in question will have presented all the facts to the CPS who are people who have studied LAW at university and passed exams which entitle them to become Barristers and Solicitors - and these folks make decisions as to whether there is a case to answer. Sure - I've had cases thrown back at me because lads, lasses and self just did not have enough to make it stick, viable or worth pursuing... (Grrr - some CPS wallies are . jobsworthy . wallies :hissyfit: )

Thus I reckon they think they have something if THEY decided to prosecute based on the evidential facts placed before them. Guy appaently rode without consideration to other road users - by all account. Basically will depend how well the CPS present the case and how well his lawyer defends him :wink: And which side the magistrates, etc got out of bed :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 07:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
oooh.. deja-vu :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 09:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
This campaign will only ever have limited and temporary success as it does not address the reason why cyclists jump red lights - they can get away with it in 99.999% of occasions. While cyclists remain almost impossible to identify and are unregistered they will continue to flout the rules of the road irrespective of any safety considerations.

I agree with B Cyclist that the campaign should be addressed equally at all road users who break the rules. By the same token, I also think that all road users should be equally licensed, have competency assessed, have insurance and be registered.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
Quote:
But when their survey showed thqat 65% of all riders failed to stop at the red light and 90% of the drivers did stop.. that 's surely telling us something about cycling standards in big cities.


Is it?

Are there the same number of cyclists as car drivers? If drivers are more than 6.5 times more numerous than cyclists, then there are the same number of cars going through red lights as cyclists. I'd guess that the multiplier is far greater than 6.5.

The standard of road use across the board is deteriorating. Singling out one group and highlighting their poor road use is hardly likely to improve the general situation across the board. Plus, as we have seen from the unfortunate WVM stats, cyclists don't generally kill people.

Regards to licensing - I don't believe this is the answer, the answer is to have the police out there in greater numbers stopping red light jumpers of all kinds. Whenever they do this in central London they give out many, many FPNs. They should do it more.

If you licence bikes you will devastate the number of people riding bikes. Why is this an issue? Simply because riding a bike regularly significantly improves health - an average 6 years of extra life expectancy. Licence bikes and you will take people off bikes and put them into cars then pay later with extra congestion, extra NHS costs.

In Gear, you can defend the police in general as much as you like, but in this case the arresting policeman was just wrong. This will be an important test case, should it ever go to court, which is unlikely.

edited for typo


Last edited by B cyclist on Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:21, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
malcolmw wrote:
... By the same token, I also think that all road users should be equally licensed, have competency assessed, have insurance and be registered.


Even pedestrians? Surely not?

And if pedestrians should not be subjected to such requirements the next question must be: "Is a cyclist more like a pedestrian or more like a motor vehicle user"?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I think you are stretching the definition of "road user" too far here. The difference with pedestrians is that they are not primarily road users like drivers, motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. They may be described as "pavement users" who occasionally interface with the road. If cyclists were mandated by law to use pavements then maybe things would be different.

So, to answer your question, cyclists ARE more like drivers than pedestrians by virtue of their intentional, deliberate use of the road.

Just before you say "What about cycle paths?", it is impossible to cycle exclusively on these and thereby excuse yourself from, overall, being a road user.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 13:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
malcolmw wrote:
I think you are stretching the definition of "road user" too far here. The difference with pedestrians is that they are not primarily road users like drivers, motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. They may be described as "pavement users" who occasionally interface with the road. If cyclists were mandated by law to use pavements then maybe things would be different.

So, to answer your question, cyclists ARE more like drivers than pedestrians by virtue of their intentional, deliberate use of the road.

Just before you say "What about cycle paths?", it is impossible to cycle exclusively on these and thereby excuse yourself from, overall, being a road user.


I wouldn't make that argument. Cycle paths have nothing to do with it.

The (present) fact of the matter is that pedestrians and cyclists use roads by right and motorists use roads by licence. Personally I think this is correct and have no wish to see it changed.

In my own mind I'm 100% confident that pedestrians are road users, but I accept that others might make different definitions. Being a road user brings highway code responsibilities, and that's a good thing.

Now where were we again? :)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 22:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
B cyclist wrote:
Quote:
But when their survey showed thqat 65% of all riders failed to stop at the red light and 90% of the drivers did stop.. that 's surely telling us something about cycling standards in big cities.


Is it?

Are there the same number of cyclists as car drivers? If drivers are more than 6.5 times more numerous than cyclists, then there are the same number of cars going through red lights as cyclists. I'd guess that the multiplier is far greater than 6.5.


If a certain place is to be believed... :hehe: Yep - lots more cyclists on line .. :wink: :wink:

But these guys are pro cycling [/i[ and per their surveys based on what they observed - they found that cyclists do not always give way.

Now - as John points out on the cyclist path thread and the fact that the lanes (- let's assume these are the rare breed of decent debris-free :wink: ) - loss of cadence and rhythmic riding can be a bit of a chore... you have to "labour a bit" to get it back... so some will ignore the zebra and the pelican. I've put up with quite a few cyclists not give way at zebras and pelicans when I/m on foot. - yet no problem with the car drivers. (Yep - I actually like [i] walking[/i[]as well :lol: :shock: )


Quote:
The standard of road use across the board is deteriorating. Singling out one group and highlighting their poor road use is hardly likely to improve the general situation across the board.


:?

Simply pointing out and reminding. Drivers could argue the same case for the single focus advert which does not help improve any sort of road safety. You know the one I mean.. "30 for a reason" Chavs read it as "target speed" :roll: As my wife pointed out on t'other channel :wink: - you could quadruple whammy home Green Cross, COAST and hazard perception and still give out a message to slow down by just some basic re-edits.

It is not "singling out one group" but merely giving a reminder that the Highway Code does require cyclists to observe red signals and to give way to pedestrians - just the same as car drivers. Also - the red colour blindedness seems to be a contagion of pandemic proportions and to some greater extent sweeping the cross section of society.

Today - was in Manchester .. cyclist ignored the lolly lady completely. He then met his mate - they chatted two abreast and then this twit turned right - cutting the corner - narrowly missing a car driver who had anticipated he might cut the corner and stopped a good half car length from the "Give Ways" .

Not a "cyclist" in real sense - but these chavs form the back bone of appalling stats on our roads...but then the guy in full gear raced past me as I was stopped at the red light further along the road - and the trendy T shirt with the catchy logo just might help. :wink:

Quote:
Plus, as we have seen from the unfortunate WVM stats, cyclists don't generally kill people.


Nope - but it sure hurt when I fell into the gas works when a cyclist charged past me (We were on the pavement - and there was this black hole of gas works ... as he pushed by me - I lost balance and fell down it! Needed stitches.... it hurt :hissyfit:

It was an SI ... I needed counselling from the traumatic sight of me own blood ... :P Poor Wildy :neko: - I was too weak to stir my own mug of tea... :lol:



Quote:
Regards to licensing - I don't believe this is the answer, the answer is to have the police out there in greater numbers stopping red light jumpers of all kinds. Whenever they do this in central London they give out many, many FPNs. They should do it more.


Yep - we do need more police. I think the fact we do not see as many as we used to has also undermined the respect as well. But when they blitzed earlier this year - all the cyclists appeared to be enraged from the letters in the mags and the posts on the cycling forums.

Quote:
If you licence bikes you will devastate the number of people riding bikes. Why is this an issue?


Wildy :neko: made a post on here after watching a "Countryfile episode" which featured Sark. Island has no cars - people use pony/traps and they all ride bikes. Horses and bikes are [i] taxed and licenced
.

I rather think this willl happen if we all give up cars and go back to horses and bikes :wink:

But then again - if we licence bikes and horses - then I would expect - by right of paying this extra tax - decent cycle paths . a decent LOCK UP for my bike in town - etc - and facilities at work to accommodate my gear and change of clothes (er - in my line - I dispose of my work togs each day - they get destroyed....I am assured in an eco-friendly fashion... :wink: ) but I am thinking of office guys who are expected to wear suits, shirts .. and ties...

Quote:
Simply because riding a bike regularly significantly improves health - an average 6 years of extra life expectancy.


It does rather depend on the individual. I could not tell my patients it would prolong their lives. I just tell them it helps enrich their lives and general health. Yes B - wot a surprise... I do encourage and suggest some exercise to my patients - but in moderation.


Quote:
Licence bikes and you will take people off bikes and put them into cars then pay later with extra congestion, extra NHS costs.


Eh? The hike in my car tax has not made me want to ditch my car. :wink:

Besides - you ever ridden in China? I have not .. but I saw Krissi's film of when she did once.. :yikes: Now that's what I call congestion - Katie Melua is right... 'ow many million? :roll: :oops: :? :shock:

As for extra NHS costs... :roll: :roll:

Gordon keeps saying he''s given us cash... we keep saying we have not seen it... In the meantime... people want the latest and most expensive treatment because they read it exists on the internet.

Most "expensive" is not necessarily best for the patient. :wink: I prescribe what works or should work for them.... within budget of course :wink:

Also - more people there are ... and we are skewing to an older population despite the best efforts of our "'orrid rebel" family - the more an ageing population will cost.... wear and tear... ; :wink: Ooo'er - all thos knee injuries.. :wink: back strains... :roll:

With the best will in the world - we will always pull or strain something or other and need the doctor :wink:


Quote:
In Gear, you can defend the police in general as much as you like, but in this case the arresting policeman was just wrong. This will be an important test case, should it ever go to court, which is unlikely.

edited for typo


IG's a :bib: mate. Written all through him...

But you don't know if the officer was wrong. As I understand the situation -also - from the magazine in question :wink: - guy was in a primary when copped - and traffic was straddling the whites to overtake him. I do not know if there was a lay-by for him to pull to..or if it was possible for him to ride in secondary. :wink: I often make for a lay- by - as did one cyclist I passed today whilst down in Manchester.

I am sure there is much more to this story than the scenario reported. :wink: in that mag... :wink:

Incidentally - they have a rather good safe commuting pull out - and it depicts a big :nono: for running a red ... :wink:

In fact - they msut have lurked on here :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

They quoted IG at one point :rotfl: and I like the fluorescent rucksack as well :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 01:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
" guy was in a primary when copped - and traffic was straddling the whites to overtake him."

Firstly - a bike is traffic.

Secondly, it appears that the 'traffic' was breaking the law as the cyclist was going over 10mph.

It was downhill and the cyclist was going at a fair lick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 02:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
B cyclist wrote:
" guy was in a primary when copped - and traffic was straddling the whites to overtake him."

Firstly - a bike is traffic.


Well - perhaps I should have said "other traffic or other road users".

Quote:

Secondly, it appears that the 'traffic' was breaking the law as the cyclist was going over 10mph.

It was downhill and the cyclist was going at a fair lick.


So - he was perhaps 20/25 mph or so.

We do not know what the speed limit was - suspect 50 ish even though the double whites given the pending prosecution here. Doubt if this was a 30 or even 40 on this basis - but magazine is rather "reticent" on this :wink:

What will be tested in this case is not so much his right to be on the road - but how he was using the road - and why his riding was considered "inconsiderate enought to warrant the charges"

Was this road a fast road? The magazine does say

Quote:

not exactly hanging around on a downhill
:wink:

So a fast road - but still holding up the traffic behind him... :scratchchin:

Was there sufficient space for a secondary position - which would have allowed a safe overtake - without a straddle?

Was there a lay-by at which he could have pulled in to allow the overtake.?

Tis a requirement abroad.... and you regularly see lorries and slow vehicles just pulling in to designated points to allow the traffic to pass.

How much was antagonistic behaviour on his part - as judged by the policeman - who will no doubt be able to supply video evidence to this court - in much the same way as he would if it were a driver? :wink:

Surely these will be the questions which will be asked in the hearing. :?

Lot of stuff obviously sub judice anyway....but there must be something more to this than is being divulged per the article in the magazine - which claims it's a matter of "cyclists' rights on the road". :roll:

Actually - it's a matter of my right (and everyone else's here) to be safe so how we are travelling on these roads anyway.

But basically - CPS will have to prove daftness on his part...and the test will be how far his riding was inconsiderate to the other road users. Has little to do with his "rights" to be on the road - but rather how his standards compromised courtesy and safety - and as said - the CPS will have to be able to prove it.

The only thing that stands out to me is that there must be something we don't know about all this - cos it sure ain't "normal" :roll:
...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
I understand the policeman that stopped him asked him why he wasn't riding on the cycle path, which is on the other side of the road. It is my reading of the case that the policeman erroneously believed that cyclists have to use paths. Who knows, maybe he had been involved in the re-drafting of the HC...

You post really doesn't make much sense. You appear to be calling for ALL traffic that is not moving as fast as some would like to get out of the way of those faster, so as not to hold up the faster ones. The slower ones in your view of the world obviously have no rights. Hopefully we have not yet reached a point in this country where a bullying attitude like that holds sway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 13:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
B cyclist wrote:
I understand the policeman that stopped him asked him why he wasn't riding on the cycle path, which is on the other side of the road. It is my reading of the case that the policeman erroneously believed that cyclists have to use paths. Who knows, maybe he had been involved in the re-drafting of the HC...


But not necessarily the policeman's :wink: who clearly though there was a case.

Was this a separated path or a tarmac job - in which case - - nope - we do not pull for not using those if you are going in the opposite direction on the basis of on-coming cyclists - and - well yeah - other traffic :wink:

Much of the case will be sub judice at the moment.

As for re-drafting the HC?

Only adding to the existing "should" - and is already there in Rule 47 as it stands now :wink: Adding "single file riding" around bends is common sense. Yoiu are not aware how many accidentd whcih do not invlolve any other road user occur this way - so it is being added as a "should" - and is in keeping with "Cycle Craft" as well.

As with drivers (all skills) - cyclists (all skills) can misudge a bend - not looking far enough ahead - not keeping the limit points ..getting into a poor position...and coming a cropper...

There are no "rights" being removed. Behave like a twerp - and a cyclist will get pulled same as the drivers. :wink:

Perhaps even there was an attitude of "how dare you point out that I was perhaps a bit unwise" and a refusal to listen to reason may have moved the " gonna use my discretionary" to "unlikely to learn in any other way" :roll:

Quote:

You post really doesn't make much sense. You appear to be calling for ALL traffic that is not moving as fast as some would like to get out of the way of those faster, so as not to hold up the faster ones. The slower ones in your view of the world obviously have no rights. Hopefully we have not yet reached a point in this country where a bullying attitude like that holds sway.


B - read it again. Ted (and not loyalty - just because I know the guy well enough - and because he married my cousin) :wink:

He pointed out the "good manners" practice which occurs abroad - namely the slow moving on fast roads pull over to assist the overtake and clear the traffic flow - and he mentioned that we do not know the speed limit.

He suspects a 50 mph plus road - but we are not told oif this road. If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers. :roll: But this seems to indicate this was a very fast road and more care would then be required on the part of the cyclist on this occasion.



we just do not know if this cyclist had space to move in to a secondary, ease off just slightly, (easing off just slightly is not a criticism - an ease up on the pedals on the downs - maintain nice a nice steady safe speed withouth gaining too much cruise - gives me that time to just recoup and maintain the stamina for the next climb - instead of tiring too much overall) :wink: and move in to assist the overtakes on a fast road. It was on a downhill - was he "running away with himself?"

Perhaps he should re-read his Franklin and subscribe to CW and Cycle Sport where the real racers read and learn :lol: vital "how to win the race" skills :)

But as MM said above - more to this than the facts released so far.

Case is not about cyclists "rights" to use the road - but how far his cycling fell below the standard required in terms of road safety and consideration for other road users.

As to why he did not use the cycle path on the other side of the road ? If it's just a tarmac job on the carriageway - cyclist just needs to sit, smile inwardly, and say nowt. :wink:

If a separated one - CPS will have to prove the use of the path was the "wiser" option - which would be difficult given its location on the other side of the road. All he has to do, then , is point out crossing busy traffic to reach it - may have been the more dangerous option. :wink:

If it is a case of whether or not he was well able to move to a secondary to allow "safe" overtakes, or was deliberately adopting a primary to antagonise - and pedalling more furiously when logically most of us ease off on the downhills to preserve energy - then this will be for the prosecution to prove - using the evidence provided. There will be probably be some video evidence :wink: in addition to the :bib: 's professional opinion - we do have this equipment on all vehicles ... :wink:

But am with Ted - there's something else in this..and we will only know after the hearing. :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Last edited by In Gear on Sat Mar 25, 2006 13:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 13:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
There is a white line to the left of the carriageway. It is quite possible that the policeman thought that this was a cycle lane, when in fact it designates the edge of the carriageway.

I'm afraid I don't have the same faith that you do that all police officers are fully conversant with all the law...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 14:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
B cyclist wrote:
There is a white line to the left of the carriageway. It is quite possible that the policeman thought that this was a cycle lane, when in fact it designates the edge of the carriageway.

I'm afraid I don't have the same faith that you do that all police officers are fully conversant with all the law...


Oh I doubt that B. All BiB are tested on this. :wink: CPS would not have gone through if this was the case either.

You do forget - we do have some tests - Specials have to pass a theory test during the initial training periods. Plastics? (am saying nuffink :wink: ).

Do not know the width of this road - but possibly - if a normal width - wider - carriageway - a secondary would have allowed him to keep his pace and allowed a safe overtake within keeping of his speed without straddling. Again - we are back to the standard and not the perceived rights.

B - it is not a case of challenging "right to ride roady pride n joy" at decent rate on this road" - but rather how far the cycling was deliberately antagonistic to other road users which is to be examined here - and the CPS have to prove it. He has some defences in that the path was on the other side of the road - and thus "perhaps not practicable"- and he was not exactly riding too slowly :wink:

But there could be something more to this anyway ... :roll:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 16:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
but rather how far the cycling was deliberately antagonistic to other road users which is to be examined here

if that's really the case why aren't the 40mph everywhere numpties and the caravaners getting done for deliberately holding up mile long queues of traffic? They're far, far harder to overtake than a single bicycle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.454s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]