And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Paul Rudin

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


> 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.

Quite - people get very confused about this w.r.t. e.g. speeding "the
cameras are set at 10% above the limit so you can go that fast", "my
speedo was broken so I didn't know how fast I was going" etc. etc. The
offence is commited when you exceed the limit by *any amount at all*
whether or not a prosecution is likely to succeed or even be brought.

Dave Larrington

In news:cu7264577k65dren9qk6j61b6ubg03164j@4ax.com,
NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.

Everyone? Speak for yourself, laddie, but that doesn't describe me when
behind the wheel, and nor, I suspect, does it describe the vast majority of
the members of this froup who are also motorists.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Hoc ardur vincere docet.

Roger Merriman

naked_draughtsman <usenet3@petereverett.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:23:53 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> > Maybe i'm just generalising from my own experience, though. I jump more
> > red lights than i can count [1], and there's a stretch of pavement on my
> > commute that i routinely cycle along [2]. Maybe i'm just assuming everyone
> > is just as criminal as me.
>
> I think you are generalising, but I wouldn't worry about it.
>
> 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.
>
i almost did have once, back when i was a postie, kid shooting down a
very narrow footpath just before i emerged from the garden.

scarest i've had is few months back going to my folks place i paused to
look at what one of the locals was doing to the house which was
fortunate as a family shot around the tight steep bend just 12 feet
further along and only just managed to stop, had i not paused to be
nosey there is no way they could of avoided my car.

they are lot slower going up the hill met a few going up that said hill
when taking my folks old still fairly recovering dog for a quiet wander,
we met at the bottom by the time i'd ambled to the top they where all
pushing their bikes in the middle...

> However here in Wrexham I estimate that 50% of cyclists ride on the
> pavement but only 5-10% jump red lights.
>
varies a lot localy around SW london/middlesex some junctions get lots
of bike just sailing though others cars chanceing it, basicly people do
what they think they can get away with, the veh
> There's a massive regional variation in behaviour of cyclists, as there is
> with the attitude of the police to such issues.
>

> peter

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Mark

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:26:53 -0500, Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>"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?!

One problem is that very few road users have any idea what primary and
"secondary" position is. They appear to genuinely believe that
cyclists should always be in the gutter. At lot of cyclists I see
appear to have the same opinion, it seems.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:23:53 +0100, Tom Anderson
<twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, NewRiderPS 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.
>
>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. Pavement riding is less common,
>but i'd wager it's still something occasionally practiced by a majority of
>cyclists.
>
>Maybe i'm just generalising from my own experience, though. I jump more
>red lights than i can count [1], and there's a stretch of pavement on my
>commute that i routinely cycle along [2]. Maybe i'm just assuming everyone
>is just as criminal as me.
>
>tom
>
>[1] Of course, only when i can tell for certain that i won't be getting in
>the way of any pedestrians or drivers - i'm a criminal, not a sociopath.
>
>[2] I do this here (hope this works):
>
>http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&h...004957&t=k&z=18
>
>The blue line is the route i'd have to take if following the law, round a
>busy and fast (well, or sometimes red-light-ridden) gyratory, exposing
>myself to danger and holding up motorists (for shame!). Instead, i
>pavement onto the triangular island, across it, across Theobald's Road (or
>whatever it is at that point), via pedestrian crossing or between
>gridlocked cars onto the pavement on the north side, then along that to
>Southampton Row, where i use a pedestrian crossing to cross, and then
>rejoin the road. There is very light pedestrian traffic here at the times
>i do this (around lunchtime, 1300-1400), and i am scrupulously careful to
>ride slowly and give pedestrians a wide berth. I'm breaking the law, but
>i'm not doing or risking doing anyone any harm, and that's what matters.

I disagree. You are harming the image of cyclists in general, helping
to perpetuate the myth that all cyclists are law breakers. In many
motorists minds this seems to give them the right to persecute
cyclists.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:29:47 +0100, Danny Colyer
<danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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.

I also see motorists jumping red lights almost every day, turning
right when right turning is prohibited, driving on the pavement,
dangerous overtakes and many other illegal activities. I also see
cyclists (mostly kids) on the pavements and jumping red lights.

However I do wonder why there is more of a fuss about cyclists
breaking laws than about any other class of road user. Motor vehicles
have much more potential to harm others and should therefore be driven
with even more care.

I asked one person I know who usually cycles on the pavement why he
did this. He told me that the road was too frightening.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:56:52 +0100,
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>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.

I would say very few drivers never exceed the speed limit. When I
enter a 30 limit, the car in front always dissappears into the
distance and the car behind nearly always comes much too close behind.

>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.

Good for you. However I think you are unusal in that respect.

>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.

Where would the tabloids be without predudice and sweeping statements?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Paul Boyd

Mark said the following on 25/06/2008 11:27:

> I disagree. You are harming the image of cyclists in general, helping
> to perpetuate the myth that all cyclists are law breakers. In many
> motorists minds this seems to give them the right to persecute
> cyclists.

I don't entirely disagree, but if motorists persecute cyclists because
they see some breaking the law, then they would also be persecuting
other motorists. Or is this "you mustn't break the law but I can"? ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Daniel Barlow

Paul Boyd <me@privacy.net> writes:

> I don't entirely disagree, but if motorists persecute cyclists because
> they see some breaking the law, then they would also be persecuting
> other motorists.

They do. "Other motorists" come in for regular criticism from
motorists everywhere - think about the stereotypes of women drivers,
middle lane hogs, Sunday drivers, crap parkers, taxi drivers, minicab
drivers ... or the perceived tension between four wheels and two:
"cagers" vs "power rangers".

The point is that as a journalist you can't write an article saying
"all drivers but me are crap" because your readers will take offence,
and it's difficult to write one saying "all drivers but you are crap"
because you have more than one reader and how do you convey to each of
them that your words are meant for them and them only? Much easier to
pick on a clearly defined minority.


-dan

Geoff Lane

Mark <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in
news:m37464hgfitcnbhus0unsv0b014p7674v4@4ax.com:

> One problem is that very few road users have any idea what primary and
> "secondary" position is. They appear to genuinely believe that
> cyclists should always be in the gutter.

They don't need to know the terms "primary" and "secondary" positions. All
they need to know is that cyclists are as entitled as any other vehicle
operator to position their vehicle wherever they choose in the lane they
occupy so as to remain safe, achieve optimum visibility, etc. They also
need to understand that cyclists who choose to move towards the left to
expedite the passage of other road users do so out of courtesy and not
because because of any obligation.

> At lot of cyclists I see appear to have the same opinion, it seems.

That is something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps we need some public
information adverts telling cyclists how to ride defensively. Perhaps then
motorists might get a clue and we might get a little more respect!

Mark

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:49:25 -0500, Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Mark <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in
>news:m37464hgfitcnbhus0unsv0b014p7674v4@4ax.com:
>
>> One problem is that very few road users have any idea what primary and
>> "secondary" position is. They appear to genuinely believe that
>> cyclists should always be in the gutter.
>
>They don't need to know the terms "primary" and "secondary" positions. All
>they need to know is that cyclists are as entitled as any other vehicle
>operator to position their vehicle wherever they choose in the lane they
>occupy so as to remain safe, achieve optimum visibility, etc. They also
>need to understand that cyclists who choose to move towards the left to
>expedite the passage of other road users do so out of courtesy and not
>because because of any obligation.
>
>> At lot of cyclists I see appear to have the same opinion, it seems.
>
>That is something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps we need some public
>information adverts telling cyclists how to ride defensively. Perhaps then
>motorists might get a clue and we might get a little more respect!

Better education of all road users is a must IMHO.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Tom Anderson

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Danny Colyer wrote:

> 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?

I don't. Seems likely, though - how many Jamie Caddicks are there likely
to be in Bristol?

> 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.

Writing for publication and for a social network use different registers,
so perhaps he took extra care with his column. Or perhaps the paper
sub-edited it.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

Tom Anderson

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Smith wrote:

> 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.

I'm pleased to hear it!

> 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.

Interesting, that comes as quite a surprise.

As others have mentioned, there may be a contextual variation, urban vs
suburban vs rural locations, etc. I'd be interested to see some data on
that too.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

Tom Anderson

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Mark wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:23:53 +0100, Tom Anderson
> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, NewRiderPS 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.
>>
>> I'm breaking the law, but i'm not doing or risking doing anyone any
>> harm, and that's what matters.
>
> I disagree. You are harming the image of cyclists in general, helping
> to perpetuate the myth that all cyclists are law breakers. In many
> motorists minds this seems to give them the right to persecute cyclists.

I'm pretty skeptical about the idea that cyclists' actions have an effect
on motorists' perceptions of them. Those who wish to hate and abuse
cyclists will find reasons to do it regardless of our collective or
individual behaviour.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith