And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Mike the unimaginative

naked_draughtsman <usenet3@petereverett.co.uk> wrote in
news:rradnVl5oNZJr_zVnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@pipex.net:

>
> However here in Wrexham I estimate that 50% of cyclists ride on the
> pavement but only 5-10% jump red lights.
>
> There's a massive regional variation in behaviour of cyclists, as
> there is with the attitude of the police to such issues.
>
> peter

I'd tend to agree with that - here in Leicester my observation is similar
to yours, perhaps even fewer RLJs but lots of pavement cyclists (for the
first time ever I was hit by a pavement bike-rider the other day while
standing at a bus stop.....).
However there are lots of motorised RLJers - in fact it's endemic in most
of the city. (I didn't realise so many cyclists drove themselves to work!)

Danny Colyer

On 24/06/2008 14:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
> But here's the chap who wrote the above article on Facebook, if you fancy
> poking him angrily:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie_Caddick/719230557

How do you know it's the same Jamie Caddick? The letter looks as though
it was written by someone at least moderately literate, the FB profile
(which I can view because his privacy settings allow users in the
Bristol network to do so) doesn't.

--
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

Danny Colyer

On 24/06/2008 18:37, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
> anecdotally I don't see much light jumping
> by cars, and probably proportionally less than cyclists.

YMMV. Anecdotally I see motorists jump red lights most days, and on
most occasions when I see a light change to red. I see a higher
proportion of motorists than cyclists go through red (or amber) lights
when the opportunity presents itself. From my own observations I'd
suggest that about 30% of adult cyclists and 90% of motorists are happy
to go through a red light, although for the motorists it makes a
difference whether the light changed on approach or whether it's been
red for a while.

Also anecdotally, the more urban the area the more RLJing and pavement
riding I tend to see by cyclists. Cyclists seem far more willing to
wait at the lights and ride on the roads in the suburbs (where I live)
than in the city centre, and more willing still in a village (where I
work). Near enough all motorists seem to go through on amber, followed
by 2 or 3 on red, wherever they are.

But see .sig.

--
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

Daniel Barlow

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:

> and there's a stretch of
> pavement on my commute that i routinely cycle along [2]

> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&h...004957&t=k&z=18

I know that junction, and you're right that it's a wide and not very
populous pavement. Prime contender for a couple of toucans and a bit
of shared-use path, I'd have thought, though I believe the whole
gyratory is one that the LCC are agitating to have returned to two-way
use.

The traffic lights at the bottom of Proctor St have possibly the shortest green
phase I've ever seen.


-dan

burtthebike

"Danny Colyer" <danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7M-dnc99h_u5p_zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> On 24/06/2008 14:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
>> But here's the chap who wrote the above article on Facebook, if you fancy
>> poking him angrily:
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie_Caddick/719230557
>
> How do you know it's the same Jamie Caddick? The letter looks as though
> it was written by someone at least moderately literate, the FB profile
> (which I can view because his privacy settings allow users in the Bristol
> network to do so) doesn't.

And he claims to have friends, so it is unlikely to be the same person.

Ian Smith

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> I think you're wrong. In fact, i think you have exactly the same
> blind spot as the cagers: "we're white as the driven snow, and it's
> the other guys who are making the trouble!". I think RLJing is as
> common amongst cyclists as speeding is among motorists.

You are wrong.

At least, the available statistics suggest you are wrong. The RAC
did a study intended to show how evil cyclist are and how they all
jump red lights, but they only got a majority going through the red at
one location of the many where they did the count. Conversely, the
government periodically does traffic speed surveys, and outside
congestion (ie when it is possible to exceed the speed limit) the
majority, and normally a large majority, of motorists exceed the
speed limit.

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

burtthebike

"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Quoting NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>:
>>Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
>>speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>
> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double white
> lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.

Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white lines,
it's unlikely to be any.

Ian Smith

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, burtthebike <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >
> > If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double
> > white lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
>
> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white
> lines, it's unlikely to be any.

It is if the cyclist is going at more than 10mph. At least, the HC
says it is. Sometimes it is wrong, but normally it manages to
identify what is actually illegal.

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

Clive George

"burtthebike" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TKb8k.96771$NN3.70666@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> Quoting NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>:
>>>Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
>>>speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>>
>> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double white
>> lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
>
> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white lines,
> it's unlikely to be any.

Unfortunately it is. In a lot of ways I'd rather it wasn't, with the caveat
that they still need to actually look and not overtake where they can't see,
but the rule about overtaking cyclists only applies when they're going up to
10mph.

cheers,
clive

Ekul Namsob

NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:03:41 +0100, Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Letter in the local paper calls all cyclists terrorists and criminals.
> >
>
> You might be able to make the case that -some- cyclists are criminals.
> There is the doping scandal, the red-light jumpers, the pavement
> riders.
>
> But I like to think those are the actions of a few.
>
> Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.

Sorry, that's not true. Many drivers don't speed, don't run lights and
don't park illegally.

To the best of my knowledge, I've never in my life parked illegally.
I've posted previously about my attitude to speeding. I've never run a
red light: indeed, I'm more likely to be found stopped at an amber
light.

You could easily make the case that some cyclists are criminals. There's
no 'might' about it. Similarly, you could easily make the case that some
motorists are criminals. Any argument that stems from unsubstantiable
broad-brush generalisation is, sadly, one that reflects badly on the
person who seeks to make it.

At least one sentence above may be self-referential.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Nigel Randell

>
> When I've visited London I've noticed that probably 50% of cyclists
> ignore red lights (although they proceed cautiously through them) but
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone cycling on the pavement. I've
> certainly never had anyone nearly ride into me while I've been
> walking on the pavement.
>
> However here in Wrexham I estimate that 50% of cyclists ride on the
> pavement but only 5-10% jump red lights.
>
> There's a massive regional variation in behaviour of cyclists, as
> there is with the attitude of the police to such issues.
>
> peter

I would be interested to know how many RLJ cyclists actually go all the way
through the junction on red (not ped crossings) rather than a bike length or
two to position themselves where they can be seen like a pseudo ASL. Again,
although I see quite a few cars crossing on red it's usually the first
second or so of the red phase which may be down to the desire to pinch a bit
of space, or <benefit-of-the-doubt mode> just forgetting to check the mirror
before the lights and not knowing what's behind </benefit-of-the-doubt
mode>.

--

Nigel

burtthebike

"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LcCdnUyysqKm1_zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> "burtthebike" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:TKb8k.96771$NN3.70666@newsfe08.ams2...
>>
>> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> Quoting NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>:
>>>>Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
>>>>speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>>>
>>> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double white
>>> lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
>>
>> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white
>> lines, it's unlikely to be any.
>
> Unfortunately it is. In a lot of ways I'd rather it wasn't, with the
> caveat that they still need to actually look and not overtake where they
> can't see, but the rule about overtaking cyclists only applies when
> they're going up to 10mph.

since the poster about double white lines didn't make any claims as to
speed, it is extremely unlikely that any driver would be prosecuted for
overtaking a cyclist in these circumstances "but officer, he was doing 9mph"
and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is extremely unlikely
that a prosecution would succeed.

Geoff Lane

"burtthebike" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:TKb8k.96771$NN3.70666@newsfe08.ams2:

>> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double
>> white lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
>
> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white
> lines, it's unlikely to be any.

It is illegal to straddle or cross a solid white line on your side to
overtake a cyclist (or any slow-moving vehicle) that's doing more than
10 mph:

Highway Code rule 165: "You MUST NOT overtake if you would have to cross
or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see
Rule 129)" and rule 129 says, "Double white lines where the line nearest
you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is
safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may
cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a
stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance
vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less."

FWIW, there's a classic piece of road leading into my town. It's about
300 yards downhill with double white lines. There's a 30 limit and blind
left hand bend at the bottom, just after which is a school and also a
park used to exercise dogs.

I normally pedal up to about 23 mph at the top of the hill then let
gravity speed me on to between 30 and 35. It's impossible for a car to
overtake safely and reduce speed not to be speeding at the start of the
30 limit, so I take the primary position to defend against unsafe
overtakes - not that this stops them since many insist on trying and end
up going round that blind bend on the wrong side of the road and well in
excess of the speed limit.

A few weeks ago, one bod (why does it always seem to be a Vauxhall)
honked his horn and cut aggressively in yet still went around the bend
halfway on the wrong side of the road and way too fast. I followed him
home and had a word. He accused me of riding inconsiderately. He thought
I should have been in the gutter. I told him why I'd taken the primary
position and pointed out that he couldn't have possibly safely overtaken
me and slowed for the 30 limit, that he'd unlawfully crossed the double
white lines, and that nearly taking out my front wheel was not a safe
manoeuvre. However, if he insisted that my cycling was inconsiderate,
I'd call the police and we'd let them decide. Strangely, he backed down.

When I confronted him, his demeanour was one of indignation and I
suspect he genuinely thought that by adopting the primary position I was
breaking the law. To me, that more than anything is the most disturbing
aspect of this. Stuff cycle farce-ilities, what we need is for other
road users to understand the law and the principles of defensive
cycling. That said, many still don't understand why a large vehicle
sometimes needs to take the right-hand lane to turn left - so what hope
have we?!

Ian Smith

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, burtthebike <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:LcCdnUyysqKm1_zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> > "burtthebike" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:TKb8k.96771$NN3.70666@newsfe08.ams2...
> >>
> >> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >>> Quoting NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>:
> >>>>Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> >>>>speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
> >>>
> >>> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double white
> >>> lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
> >>
> >> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white
> >> lines, it's unlikely to be any.
> >
> > Unfortunately it is. In a lot of ways I'd rather it wasn't, with the
> > caveat that they still need to actually look and not overtake where they
> > can't see, but the rule about overtaking cyclists only applies when
> > they're going up to 10mph.
>
> since the poster about double white lines didn't make any claims as to
> speed, it is extremely unlikely that any driver would be prosecuted for
> overtaking a cyclist in these circumstances "but officer, he was doing 9mph"
> and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is extremely unlikely
> that a prosecution would succeed.

There was suggestion that a prosecution would proceed or succeed, only
that an illegal action would be taken. Illegal things are still
illegal even if you are not convicted.

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