On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:37:49 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

I would call it a divine right,

Should be: I would *not* call it a divine right

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:16:02 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Ah, I see you are a 'Cyclist' with a capital C. That explains much ...
Whilst I am sure that many motorists represent an (unwitting) danger to
cyclists, it can equally be said that many cyclists are an utter menace on
the roads, believing as they do, that they have a divine right to be on the
road with greater status than other road users, and to use any part of the
road / footpath / traffic control systems, to expedite their journey in any
way they see fit. Woe betide any motorist who has the temerity to sound his
horn at one of these cyclists, for cutting him up. I have been gestured at
and shouted and sworn at for committing this cardinal sin ...

Cyclists have an unlicensed right to use the road; motorists do not.

Cyclists are explicitily banned from using the footway by the side of
the road, unless there is a specific regulation allowing cyclists to
use the footway. However, official guidance to the police and other
enforcement authorities is to use discretion when dealing with
cyclists on the footway, especially those cycling with consideration
for other footway users and out of fear of using the road.

Cyclists must, like any other road user, obey traffic control signals.
However, cyclists do have the option of dismounting and waking their
bike across a junction.

In a constant stream of motor traffic, it is unusual to see motorists
stop at traffic signals when they change. It is common for three or
more vehicles to continue through the junction. I do not judge
cyclists who do the same to be any better or worse than those
motorists, though I do have a serious issue with the minority of
cyclists who cycle through traffic control signals during the
pedestrian phase.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:37:49 +0100
Tom Crispin wrote:

I would be very careful about a blanket label of the elderly and those
with a disability who use a "invalid carriage" as "idiots".

Indeed - it's more of a tartan travel rug than a blanket. ;-)

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...


Cyclists must, like any other road user, obey traffic control signals.
However, cyclists do have the option of dismounting and waking their
bike across a junction.

Not if its against the traffic signals they don't.
They often do.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...


Cyclists must, like any other road user, obey traffic control signals.
However, cyclists do have the option of dismounting and waking their
bike across a junction.

Not if its against the traffic signals they don't.
They often do.




'Waking' no ,
'Walking' yes
back to the definition of cycist and pedestrian again.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:16:02 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


snip


It is not for the police to decide what an abnormal load is or is not,
all they can do is interpret the law. As far as I know there is no
width restriction on bicycle loads, though there is a law which
restricts the carriage of a second person on a bicycle for which there
has been no special adaptation.

I do not believe that there is any restriction on the part of the foot
that sits on a bicycle pedal. Indeed, I have a friend who has an
entire leg missing - I would hate to think that he might be committing
an offence by cycling.

There is no law as such, which says that it is illegal to eat an apple
whilst driving a car, but if a police officer decides for whatever reason
that as a result of eating said apple, you are not "properly in control of
the vehicle", then he can decide that you have committed an offence based
on
that.

This is nonsense.


It is not for the police to determine guilt or otherwise - that is for
the courts. However, the police, in consultation with the alleged
offender, *might* agree guilt between them and the alleged offender
may choose to pay a fixed penalty for a limited number of offences.


It is not nonsense. There has been huge debates over this exact subject in
the amateur radio world as to whether the use of a fist mic in a car is
legal, as an apparent waiver was put in place to cover their use by the
likes of taxi drivers. In the course of these debates, there were articles
by both a serving police officer and a magistrate in regard of the legality.
At around the same time, there was the famous case of "Apple Girl". There is
an offence of not being properly in control of the vehicle, and as to when
you are and are not properly in control of the vehicle, is determined by any
police officer who might encounter you. A fixed penalty notice can, I
believe, be issued, and thus, unless you decide to fight it, the courts are
not involved in making any judgement in respect of it.



I don't know, however, whether the same 'interpretation' of any laws
can be applied to cyclists. As road users, allbeit unlicensed ones who
don't
pay any road tax, I think that they should be subject to similar treatment
as car drivers, but I'm sure that wouldn't be the case ...

Cyclists are dealt with very severely in proportion to the danger they
pose to others.


snip

I just felt that when I see some of the dangerous manoeuvres that some
cyclists get up to, which represent a serious hazard to both themselves
and
other road users, the last thing I would want to encounter driving
through
my village, was a cyclist with an 'odd' load on the back ... ??

I think that you will find that it is motorists that present a serious
hazard to cyclists, and not cyclists themselves: although not unheard
of, it is exceptionally rare for a cyclist to cause a death to another
road user.

Ah, I see you are a 'Cyclist' with a capital C. That explains much ...
Whilst I am sure that many motorists represent an (unwitting) danger to
cyclists, it can equally be said that many cyclists are an utter menace on
the roads, believing as they do, that they have a divine right to be on
the
road with greater status than other road users, and to use any part of the
road / footpath / traffic control systems, to expedite their journey in
any
way they see fit. Woe betide any motorist who has the temerity to sound
his
horn at one of these cyclists, for cutting him up. I have been gestured at
and shouted and sworn at for committing this cardinal sin ...

I would call it a divine right, but under law cyclists do have a right
to use the road, except motorways and a few other roads and tunnels,
without let or hinderance.


Read properly. I didn't either say, or imply that you had no right to be a
road user, divine or otherwise. What I did say was that many cyclists seem
to believe that they have a greater 'right' to be there than motorists, and
misuse the road, its control systems, and the surrounding area.



If you were driving through your village and you encountered a cyclist
with another bicycle strapped to their rear rack, would it cause you
to take more care or less care around that cyclist?

My anecdotal evidence is that motorists either stayed behind me or
passed with an exceptionally wide margin. This made me feel
absolutely safe on my journey to work through London's rush hour
traffic.

I don't suggest for one moment that you are, in general, a dangerous
cyclist, and I am sure that you took plenty of care on your journey.
Whilst
I accept that in places such as India, everything from a single rider to
half a car is carried as the norm on a pushbike or moped, that isn't the
case here. Certainly, provided that I saw your unusual load, I would give
you a wide(r) berth, but these days, there are so many 'legitimate'
hazards
on our roads - speed bumps, speed cameras, chicanes, a forest of general
road signs, idiots in invalid carriages tooling down the road, kids that
have never been taught by their half-educated parents, that cars are hard,
and so on - to contend with, that overall attention is already diverted in
many different directions, without having to take on board cyclists with
'abnormal' loads (my definition of the word). So in querying the 'safety'
of
your unusually loaded cycle, I was, to some extent, playing devil's
advocate.

I would be very careful about a blanket label of the elderly and those
with a disability who use a "invalid carriage" as "idiots".

Read properly before getting on your high PC horse. I said

"Idiots in invalid carriages tooling down the road ... "

I was not referring to owners of these vehicles who use them in a sensible
way on the footpath, but to the idiots - and I use that word meaning exactly
that - who drive them on the road with no insurance, weaving about all over
the place. Just a couple of weeks ago, the car in front of me came so close
to hitting one that just made a turn straight across the front of him, that
he very nearly hit a bollard in the centre of the road, by having to swerve
violently. I don't care whether the person in it was disabled. That does not
excuse him from this inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour.

Arfa

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
.. .


Cyclists must, like any other road user, obey traffic control signals.
However, cyclists do have the option of dismounting and waking their
bike across a junction.

Not if its against the traffic signals they don't.
They often do.





You should come to cycle city .. Cambridge here you can see cyclists
'tho I hesitate to call 'em that, go through red lights at every
opportunity;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:15:02 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

What I did say was that many cyclists seem
to believe that they have a greater 'right' to be there than motorists

This much is true.

Anyone has the right to use the highway as a cyclist.

To use the highway as a motorist you need to be licenced, have your
vehicle checked annually, after the first three years, and pay
additional duty. What is more, motorists may have their licence
suspended and, in some cases, their property destroyed if they fail to
follow a few simple rules.