Cycling wrong way up one way street

Jon

On 14 May, 20:44, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:50:15 -0500, Andy Leighton
> *There are definitely laws that dictate that
> >> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> >> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
> >Name those laws then.
>
> Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
> collisions between objects constructed of different strength
> materials.
>
Given that the differential between the mass of an HGV and of a car is
greater than that between that of a cycle + rider and of a car, are
you also proposing that cars and HGV's should be on opposite sides of
the road?

Jon

Adrian

Jon <jonathan.gurney@wlc.ac.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> You are gravely mistaken. Â*There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>>
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist

> Read those two points again.

They don't contradict each other, unless you're forgetting about the
sentence at the end of the first paragraph.

Palindrome

Jon wrote:
> On 14 May, 19:40, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
>>
>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>>
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist
>
> Read those two points again.
>
OK, I've read them again. They still make perfect sense.

In the general case, drivers do try very hard to avoid hitting anything,
including pedestrians and cyclists. As do cyclists. For all sorts of
reasons, including that there could be legal and financial implications.

However, in a situation where a collision appears inevitable,
pedestrians do have the unique ability to almost instantaneously
accelerate orthogonally to the collision vector. They are not usually
legally required to do so - the law of self-preservation may not be on
the statute book, but applies never the less. Cyclists, too, can execute
manoeuvres not available to other wheeled vehicles which can remove
them from the collision vector, usually involving "falling off". Again,
the law of self-preservation applies, even if the other participant is
the one legally in the wrong.

The idea of cyclists travelling against the traffic flow would certainly
reduce cyclist accident rates. After a short blip removing almost all of
them from the roads, the rate would fall to an all-time low..

--
Sue













As a pedestrian I can achieve something that few road vehicles can
manage - an almost instantaneous acceleration orthogonal to my current
direction of motion.

IanAl

On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:31:07 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:

>In news:-K2dnR8n2arolbbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net,
>JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Cynic wrote:
>
>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>> way.
>>
>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>>
>> So I see.
>>
>> It takes all sorts.
>>
>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>
>Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
>ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
>of other road users.
>
>It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
>there.

It's recommended for pedestrians in the Highway Code.

Cynic

On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:07 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

>>> Citation, please?

>>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?

>> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
>> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
>> journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
>> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
>> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
>> years ago?

>If you say it was the law - yes.

>Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.

Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

--
Cynic

Cynic

On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<jonathan.gurney@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
>> collisions between objects constructed of different strength
>> materials.

>Given that the differential between the mass of an HGV and of a car is
>greater than that between that of a cycle + rider and of a car, are
>you also proposing that cars and HGV's should be on opposite sides of
>the road?

Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
*mass* of the vehicles?

The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
of its relatively low visibility.

--
Cynic

Cynic

On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<jonathan.gurney@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:

>> You are gravely mistaken. *There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.

>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist

>Read those two points again.

The difference is in the probability that the "see and avoid" action
will take place successfully.

It is more likely that a cyclist facing a car will see it than a car
driver will see a cyclist up ahead.

--
Cynic

Alan Braggins

In article <g0fljr$94n$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <g0cvha$4dm$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>TimB wrote:
>>>>days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>>>>cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
>>>>travelling at a very leisurely pace
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Quite possible to have an exemption for emergency vehicles.
>
> Yes, I know. Any traffic order with such an exemption is unlikely to
>specify that the emergency vehicles has to be rushing to an incident.

If it specifies emergency vehicles, it specifies emergency vehicles.
Having a POLICE badge on doesn't make it an emergency vehicle if there
is no emergency.

Ian Smith

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 15 May 2008, Alan Braggins <armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <g0fljr$94n$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >Alan Braggins wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I know. Any traffic order with such an exemption is unlikely
> > to specify that the emergency vehicles has to be rushing to an
> > incident.
>
> If it specifies emergency vehicles, it specifies emergency vehicles.
> Having a POLICE badge on doesn't make it an emergency vehicle if there
> is no emergency.

Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
responding to an emergency. Hence the recent case of the lying copper
who was caught out by his mates - he had to find an emergency to
pretend to be responding to, it wasn't good enough that he was just
driving a police vehicle.

Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.

Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.

I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
orders would, I'd think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
> *mass* of the vehicles?
>
> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles

So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
me by?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Palindrome

Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>> *mass* of the vehicles?
>>
>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>
> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
> me by?
>

A driver should not have to expect to encounter some lunatic on a bike
trying to use the remaining width of a lane to scrape* by. If the lane
has a car or larger in it - the lane is occupied and the cyclist should
wait, use a different lane or get off and push the bike up the pavement.

*Often literally.

However, in the real world, drivers are forced to the edge of the lane
in order to allow determined cyclists through with as little damage as
possible. Not quite "pull off the road" - but significantly decreasing
the margin of safety between themselves and drivers coming the other way.
--
Sue

_

On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic wrote:


> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
> and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
> of its relatively low visibility.

Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.

There - fixed.

Steve Firth

Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
> > *mass* of the vehicles?
> >
> > The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>
> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
> me by?

Cyclists certainly seem to think so. Maximum stupidity points given to
the pair in heavy traffic yesterday who cycled between lanes of traffic
on a dual carriageway swerving between the moving vehicles (i.e. through
the space between the bonnet of one car and the boot of the next) as
they did so. I was ever so impressed when they chose to do that to me
and one of them caught his foot on the pedal somehow and came to a halt.
How fortunate one of us was paying attention and driving well within the
capabilities of his vehicle, so I didn't turn him into twatburger as he
deserved.

Steve Firth

Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

BTW, setting follow ups without mentioning the fact is plain rude.

> Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
> responding to an emergency.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part. The actual phrase used is
about not hindering a policeman in the execution of his duty. No mention
of responding to an emergency. So police officers can ignore traffic
restrictions without necessarily responding to an emergency.

Examples include training where police officers in cars and on
motorbikes routinely exceed the speed limit and ignore other traffic
restrictions. There's no emergency.

> Hence the recent case of the lying copper who was caught out by his mates
> - he had to find an emergency to pretend to be responding to, it wasn't
> good enough that he was just driving a police vehicle.

He could have availed himself of the "training" or "familiarising myself
with the vehicle" defence. However I believe in the case that you refer
to he was in his own vehicle, not a police car.

> Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
> hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.
>
> Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
> he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
> about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.
>
> I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
> requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
> orders would, I'd think.

The case of PC Mark Milton shows that the courts treat police drivers
very differently from other motorists even when the police driver's
behaviour seems far outside what is regarded as acceptable. He was
(IIRC) found to be not guilty, then guilty but given an absolute
discharge and then found to be not guilty again.

So even if he had been guilty of dangerous driving he would have
received an absolute discharge.