Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 02, 2020 07:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 17:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
johnsher wrote:
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.


But I think the issue ist perhaps how hard he made the overtake perhaps?

But back to topic... I see no problem with the "Stop at Red campaign" und I do not seem to be able to reconcile with this argument or issue of "if cyclist ist copped doing something he should not per the Highway Code or break law" - ist "denying him him rights to ride on road" as it seem to suggest that cyclist think they should be above the laws here because they ride a bicycle.


If they do something daft or considered to be dangerously illegal - make no difference if in car, on bike or on roller skates - then I think ist correct to do either warn or if necessary decide on taking matter further.

Ist not about "denying rights" to do anything. Ist about encouraging good practice und safety led behaviour - but this should not mean "draconian letter of law" or interpreting a "should" in Highway Code without looking at all the facts. :wink:

Good justice require balance und objective look from all angles - nicht?

But I was not there so I do not know if he was near the white line or centrally positioned - making it difficult to overtake


Ist possible he was 25-30 mph on a 50mph of higher road - but I am with Mad DOc und lieber IG - he must perhaps have done something more to make this officer think it warranted action. Does not make sense given the path on the other side of the road to suggest court action because he chose not to use it.

Ist a "should" if practicable - not a MUST

Insurers would make something of it - in event of mishap - because they are sharks who want to make cash.

But ist because of this - Mad Doc, self und IG think there ist something else in this story which ist sub judice.

Ist different from the caravan, horse or slow car - as cyclist ist usually narrower und they usually assist overtakes when they can - or most I meet do. Perhaps ist because they appreciate my distance - und thus ist part of the negotiating system which beget the courtesy.




Think about it - if we all ride - there will be laws und compulsory test introduced because we will have to have something in place to help us all cope with the jostling on the roads... :roll:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Made a couple of enquiries from a old pal about this road. He' s another bib - based in that area...not involved in this case but aware of it .. :wink:

He cannot rightly remember the speed limit on this stretch - we are not omniscient about limits - we ( :bib:) have to look at the lollies when we drive same as everyone else :wink:

Well - apparently lolly-wise - the road varries - 50 mph to NSL around that area.

Cycle lane would appear to be there for the cyclists on the ascent and the double whites are places there to stop overtakes up to the borw of this hill. Apparently - it's quite a climb.

Given that we normally pull drivers for crossing a double white - asked my mate if it was possible to pass a cyclist in secondary with a good clearance margin without crossing the solids

He reckoned that normal saloon - not a 4x4 :wink: van...lorry could manage it - passing carefully - not blatting by ... giving cyclists a good "Space" margin

Perhaps that's the issue to be decided in court - how far was the cycling inconsiderate?


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Has nothing to do with "rights" to ride there. We have the right to ride on the road as cyclists --- and the "right to drive a car on these roads providing we have passed a test to meet a required standard and have fulfilled a number of legal/safety requirements relating to owning/keeping said vehicle.

But per the Highway Codes - rules 51 and 124/125 - there is a requirement per a "should" to be considerate to other road users.

I rather suspect the person has been charged with offences under RTA sections 28/29 - which are not Fixed Penalty - they are always via "summons" :roll:

Punishment for section 28" - Level 4 on "Standard Scale" and Level 3 on the "Standard Scale" These relate to size of fines - he won't get locked up if found guilty :wink: If the mags are in a bad mood - he could get penalty points on an "imaginary licence :? " (Yeah... absurd...) or he may even get an ASBO. They seem to like ASBOs these days... some kind of target... :scratchchin: ??? But it would depend on whtehr or not he was found guilty and how inconsiderate his riding was proven to be on this occasion.
:roll:

By the way - if you park your car on a cycle path - that is also dealt with summarily and incurs Level 3 fine. (RTA - section 21)

Carrying a passenger on your bike contrary to RTA section 24 - =dealt with summarily and Level 1 fine ... :wink:

Oooh - we do all this up here....

I don't think folks'd really like Durham after all.... :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: Mon Mar 27, 2006 21:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
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...

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 - you misunderstand - I think....

Holding up traffic and driving way too slow or deliberately holding up traffic is also classed as "inconsiderate driving or riding".

There is a negotiation - and if it was a road whereby a legal overtake was possible and someone deliberately tried to prevent... then there is a question of considerate behaviour.

If impossible to overtake .. because danger, lack of consideration, legality - different matter.

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Not normal for police not to do the driver for contravening a solid and going for the cyclist.

Obviously - truth - whatever it is will not be in public domain yet - and I doubt the guy will post to acf.C+ any wrong doing on his part - where he has posted his side of this tale :wink: I am sure all will come out in the wash once the case has been heard anyway..

On face of it.. seems a jolly odd stand by the police and CPS .. why I think there's more to it...

Not judging the guy .. just how it seems to me...from the barest bones of all this.

As IG has pointed out - can't help but agree - not about "right to ride" - no one disputes this... but it's about "safety and personal responsibiltuy to behave .. ride or drive or cycle or horse ride .. without causing absolute inconvenience, intimidation, lack of consideration to others... and as regards "speeding" - no one on this board would advocate deliberate speeding to intimidate, endanger.. whatever .. but we all know that whether on a bicycycle.. mortorabike .. car .. lorry .. we can all comply yet blip over.. and for some .. this occurs via a lottery of cam tolerance and even loaded film... :roll:

I hope this shows you that average guy or gal on this site ain't "boy racer" :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: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 19:42
Posts: 7
In Gear wrote:
If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers.


Done them for what?
And why would it make a difference what the applicable speed limit was?

_________________
cpm
If you don't heed the sign
be prepared for a fine


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 21:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
I think he means he'd be a bit livid over crossing a solid white without good reason.

He's my wife's cousin and not posting this cos of this - but guy happens to be a decent :bib: who does try to use his one or two brain cells from time to time ( to IG - a private :wink: :P )

By the way - cpm :welcome:

Look forward to "chatting and setting the world straight" with you!

_________________
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: Fri Mar 31, 2006 09:36 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:15
Posts: 318
Location: Co Durham
My experiences for what they are worth: passing red traffic lights - as you can probably guess I don't whether in the car or on the bike. Doing it on the latter really p*sses off car drivers even if it is much more of a nuisance to have to stop on the bike. Round here the major problem is with the "new, improved" pedestrian traffic lights which only change to red when all the vehicles have disappeared and usually so have the pedestrians who got so fed up waiting that they crossed anyway. So the next vehicles to appear get stopped for a lengthy period for no reason. Some drivers go straight through the red. Please can we have our zebra crossings back complete with belisha beacons - happier motorists, happier pedestrians!

Overtaking cyclists on double white lines - legal if the cyclist is doing 10 mph or less but the law is rarely obeyed and sensibly not enforced except in extremis. I am quite happy to be overtaken on the bike where there are double white lines except when drivers do it without touching or crossing the lines - it can be pretty hairy when they don't slow down either. There is obviously more danger when I am cycling uphill at slow speed as it is much more difficult to hold a straight course close to the edge. Some drivers seem to think that driving without due care or without reasonable consideration isn't an offence whereas crossing the lines is! It is also clear that some drivers are not prepared to slow down and/or can't judge distances properly as they pass extremely close then pull to the right afterwards.
Travelling at speed (for a cyclist) downhill, say somewhere like coming down from Hartside, I would expect car drivers to stay behind until it is safe to overtake whether or not there are double white lines.
There must be more to the case in C+ than meets the eye - deliberate obstruction/ furious riding by the cyclist or something similar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 15:06 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 19:42
Posts: 7
Mad Moggie wrote:
I think he means he'd be a bit livid over crossing a solid white without good reason.

He's my wife's cousin and not posting this cos of this - but guy happens to be a decent :bib: who does try to use his one or two brain cells from time to time ( to IG - a private :wink: :P )

By the way - cpm :welcome:

Look forward to "chatting and setting the world straight" with you!


Hi MM,
thanks for the welcome.

I was however hoping for a direct answer from In Gear.

cheers,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 23:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers.


Done them for what?
And why would it make a difference what the applicable speed limit was?


You are not supposed to cross a double or solid white for an overtake. The only exception being a road user travelling at or below 10 mph.


Says so in the Highway Code :wink:

Thus a cyclist travelling at fair rate of knots on a "low/medium" speed road would not have been deemed "inconvenient"

In an NSL.. and if as seemingly deliberate as it appeared to the arresting officer.. different ball game as it could increase potential danger to the cyclist and the drivers.


also :welcome:

_________________
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 Apr 14, 2006 12:02 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 19:42
Posts: 7
In Gear wrote:
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers.


Done them for what?
And why would it make a difference what the applicable speed limit was?


You are not supposed to cross a double or solid white for an overtake. The only exception being a road user travelling at or below 10 mph.


Says so in the Highway Code :wink:

Thus a cyclist travelling at fair rate of knots on a "low/medium" speed road would not have been deemed "inconvenient"

In an NSL.. and if as seemingly deliberate as it appeared to the arresting officer.. different ball game as it could increase potential danger to the cyclist and the drivers.


also :welcome:


That's a rather vague response.

What puzzled me was your use of the word "if". The regulations make no exception for the restriction on crossing a solid white line based on the prevalent speed limit. You seem to think it makes a difference. Why is that?

Your understanding of the exception to not crossing the solid white line is vague too. The Highway Code actually says "You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less."

Not just any "road user" as you appear to think.

Thanks for the welcome.

_________________
cpm
If you don't heed the sign
be prepared for a fine


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 13:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers.


Done them for what?
And why would it make a difference what the applicable speed limit was?


You are not supposed to cross a double or solid white for an overtake. The only exception being a road user travelling at or below 10 mph.


Says so in the Highway Code :wink:

Thus a cyclist travelling at fair rate of knots on a "low/medium" speed road would not have been deemed "inconvenient"

In an NSL.. and if as seemingly deliberate as it appeared to the arresting officer.. different ball game as it could increase potential danger to the cyclist and the drivers.


also :welcome:


That's a rather vague response.

What puzzled me was your use of the word "if". The regulations make no exception for the restriction on crossing a solid white line based on the prevalent speed limit. You seem to think it makes a difference. Why is that?

Your understanding of the exception to not crossing the solid white line is vague too. The Highway Code actually says "You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less."

Not just any "road user" as you appear to think.

Thanks for the welcome.


Welcome from me too.

The speed limit may not make a difference to the highway code or the letter of the law. However, unlike the letter of the law or the highway code (or for that matter automated enforcement of any description including speed cameras), policemen are human and round off black-and-white corners.

Consider a 20 or 30 mph speed limited road, a double-white-line section with restricted width and poor visibility for, say, 200 yards. Anyone passing a horse or cycle travelling at, say, 10 mph in that section is within the letter of the law (provided they themselves remain within the posted speed limit) but would IMHO be imbecillic to do so if the road widens, visibility increases and the double white line becomes a single dotted within the short distance (and of course the "no overtaking for 1/4 mile" sign at the entrance to the restricted section would have advised of this). Nudge it up to 40 during the manouevre and you've broken the law. This one, were I trafpol, I would tug (irrespective of speed), but possibly add prosecute to the speeder.

Now consider a double white line lasting 2 miles on a NSL road. The cycle this time is doing 15 - 20 mph and a stretch of road fairly early on in the restriction - still with the double white line - offers adequate visibility for a burst overtake without any risks. This one brakes the written law, but risks less and gains more than the lower speed example above. This one I'd likely not tug.

Would I be wrong? To the letter of the law, probably. That's why I am so grateful for human rather than automated policing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 13:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:
If a 40 mph max - our lads would have done the drivers.


Done them for what?
And why would it make a difference what the applicable speed limit was?


You are not supposed to cross a double or solid white for an overtake. The only exception being a road user travelling at or below 10 mph.


Says so in the Highway Code :wink:

Thus a cyclist travelling at fair rate of knots on a "low/medium" speed road would not have been deemed "inconvenient"

In an NSL.. and if as seemingly deliberate as it appeared to the arresting officer.. different ball game as it could increase potential danger to the cyclist and the drivers.


also :welcome:


That's a rather vague response.

What puzzled me was your use of the word "if".


Well - if the road in question is a fairly low speed limit (30mph -40 mph) and the cyclist or whatever is above 10 mph - even approaching 20/25 mph - then I do not see this as holding up folks to exasperation. Flow is not affected - nor is the hazard level increased.


This road, however, was in the upper speed limits and the cyclist was in a primary. Had he used a secondary - he could have been overtaken carefully without crossing any line. The path was - I consider - primarily to remove the cylists on the up hill from danger.

There is also the point that he was perhaps letting his bike "run away" with him.

Sure there is a temptation to allow the speed to build on a steepish down - and yep - in a race situation - (and let's be clear about races - roads are closed off for these - I was caught out once in the French Alps during the Tour - mammoth jam .. was stuck for hours As I was on hols - I just parked up and went for coffee and cakes..and a stroll around the town :lol: 8-) )

But you do not meet any other road user in such races - and in this situation - he may have come unstuck per a little chat to colleague in that area :)


Quote:
The regulations make no exception for the restriction on crossing a solid white line based on the prevalent speed limit. You seem to think it makes a difference. Why is that?

Your understanding of the exception to not crossing the solid white line is vague too. The Highway Code actually says "You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less."

Not just any "road user" as you appear to think.

Thanks for the welcome.


I also include tractors and lawn mowers. joggers .. as "road users" - but in any case the parked car, broken down car, cyclist, person jogging, group of joggers, drivers of tractors, hedge cutters, lawn mowers, whatever are ROAD USERS regardless of how they are on the road. :wink:


If any of these are travelling at or above 10 mph and a jogger can... average person's normal walking speed is about 5 mph or more[ - so if they are jogging or running - they will be in excess :wink: - then normally we prosecute crossing solids.

This case .. something odd about it - as usually we would be doing the drivers. There is something else which will only appear once the case has been heard in the court - and that something appears to have mitigated the drivers in this case.

I suspect he was riding on the solid white to prevent any attempt to pass without crossing it - because if a road with a solid white is wide enough and safe enough - you can overtake.

There is one such in our patch... two lanes on one side of the carriageway and a solid which oncoming cannot cross and overtakers cannot cross.

If road was wide enough to accommodate a a SAFE COAST overtake of cyclist in secondary without crossing any solid - then they can. It is if they cross the solid that a motoring offence has been committed.

More to this than guy can say in any case. He may have posted his "story2 to the cycling sites - but HIS version of the events and he is not likely to say more because his case is really sub judice and he will not be posting something which could incriminate him 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: Fri Apr 14, 2006 16:23 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 19:42
Posts: 7
In Gear wrote:

Well - if the road in question is a fairly low speed limit (30mph -40 mph) and the cyclist or whatever is above 10 mph - even approaching 20/25 mph - then I do not see this as holding up folks to exasperation. Flow is not affected - nor is the hazard level increased.


This road, however, was in the upper speed limits ...


The prevalent speed limit is irrelevant to the offence you would have charged the motorists with (of crossing solid double white lines).

It doesn't suddenly fail to be an offence just because the speed limit is greater than 40mph.

_________________
cpm
If you don't heed the sign
be prepared for a fine


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 17:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
cpm wrote:
In Gear wrote:

Well - if the road in question is a fairly low speed limit (30mph -40 mph) and the cyclist or whatever is above 10 mph - even approaching 20/25 mph - then I do not see this as holding up folks to exasperation. Flow is not affected - nor is the hazard level increased.


This road, however, was in the upper speed limits ...


The prevalent speed limit is irrelevant to the offence you would have charged the motorists with (of crossing solid double white lines).

It doesn't suddenly fail to be an offence just because the speed limit is greater than 40mph.



We are establishing what would be reasonable. It is not unreasonable in the low speeds and I suspect the carriageway was wide enough to accommodate a safe drive past - but the cycllist deliberately placed himself in a position to prevent any such safe overtake.

There is something why the drivers were not charged and a mitigating circumstance is granted to them - and this cyclist has been charged with an offence.


Was not there - can only go off descriptions given - and a photo of road which appeared in a local paper in the area....



But in this instance - we have a police officer who did not charge the drivers with transgressing the solid whites.

Normally - we prosecute the drivers. In this case the CPS has gone for the cyclist. They do not normally do this. :wink:


There is something else as to why these drivers escaped prosecution and why their action was deemed to have a mitigating circumstance.

There is something in this which has not come to light - reason will be sub judice. Am aware this person posts to C+ and acf and posted HIS version only. Very understandably - he is hardly going to post anything which will incriminate humself - so I would not be inclined to take his posts at face value :wink:



I suspect the road was wide enough to accommodate a safe drive past at a low speed - but that the rider deliberately placed himself in a situation which made overtake impossible without crossing the whites. Was a fast road and per a pal down there and brief local news report - says rider was riding near the whites and whilst he was riding at speed - traffic was queuing and congesting up behind.

I also suspect that the ride and bicycle position down this gradient were not quite as they should have been for safety reasons and the CPS will have to decide and prove to the court how far this cyclist posed a danger to other road users by whatever he was doing at the time.

Because there is more to this than not using the cycle lane - we just have his word for this :wink:

Motorists are not normally let off crossing a solid white unless there is a darned good reason :wink:

Cyclists are not normnally charged with an offence of this nature unless there is a darned good reason :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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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 : 1.018s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]