On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 21:38:15 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 09/08/2014 07:49, harryagain wrote:
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.

I drive straight into our drive and reverse out.

Were we on a main road, I wouldn't do that. It is a tiny side road
expressly intended for accessing garages and drives.

Reversing in causes exhaust fumes to go straight into our house when I
start the engine. That is why I don't reverse in!


You need to shut the front door of your house before you drive off.

in 1329249 20140817 150054 Judith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:33:54 +0100, JTM wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John


I don't think cars are allowed to race on roads - but of course cyclists are
and do.

They have car races in Birmingham city centre.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:50:13 BST, Bob Martin wrote:

in 1329249 20140817 150054 Judith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:33:54 +0100, JTM wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John


I don't think cars are allowed to race on roads - but of course cyclists are
and do.

They have car races in Birmingham city centre.

Yes - and they close the roads - unlike cycle races where they mix with and
obstruct the other traffic.

On 15/08/2014 13:38, larkim wrote:
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

When did they bring that in?

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 15/08/2014 13:38, larkim wrote:
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

When did they bring that in?

Andy

This may help:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-libra...ty-regulations

On 18/08/2014 06:55, Richard wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 15/08/2014 13:38, larkim wrote:
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

When did they bring that in?

Andy

This may help:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-libra...ty-regulations


It does, thanks. My bike pre-dates the new regs; I don't have a bell.
That also says lights _or_ _reflectors_ - lights are still optional.

Interesting this - I race a dinghy. All the modern ones have to be CE
rated - unless specially designed for racing. So almost recent boats all
seem to have a little plaque saying they're for racing. I've only ever
seen a couple with the weight and occupancy limits. Is there anything
similar for bikes?

Andy

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 18/08/2014 06:55, Richard wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 15/08/2014 13:38, larkim wrote:
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

When did they bring that in?

Andy

This may help:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-libra...ty-regulations


It does, thanks. My bike pre-dates the new regs; I don't have a bell.
That also says lights _or_ _reflectors_ - lights are still optional.

Christ yes, effing hopeless isn't it. The lunatics have taken over the
asylum in this case. The regs are obviously intended to pander to the
lycra brigade, instead of being about cycling as a mode of transport
(which is what, if anything, it should be), and a *safe* mode, at that
(safe to its users, and also others, IOW). I'd certainly discourage
anyone from going anywhere near places such as Cambridge. I worked
there for a number of years, but escaped, like, intact.

Bikes should have bells,

I never used one, it makes a lot more sense to just shout if you need to.

lights,

Bit silly to mandate that for all bikes when plenty dont get used at night.

insurance, and be registered.

Mad.

That would go some way to improving safety.

The main risk has nothing to do with any of that.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 18/08/2014 06:55, Richard wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 15/08/2014 13:38, larkim wrote:
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

When did they bring that in?

Andy

This may help:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-libra...ty-regulations


It does, thanks. My bike pre-dates the new regs; I don't have a bell.
That also says lights _or_ _reflectors_ - lights are still optional.

Christ yes, effing hopeless isn't it. The lunatics have taken over the
asylum in this case. The regs are obviously intended to pander to the
lycra brigade, instead of being about cycling as a mode of transport
(which is what, if anything, it should be), and a *safe* mode, at that
(safe to its users, and also others, IOW). I'd certainly discourage
anyone from going anywhere near places such as Cambridge. I worked
there for a number of years, but escaped, like, intact.

Bikes should have bells, lights, insurance, and be registered. That
would go some way to improving safety.

Indeed. Safety could further be improved by removing the optional extra of
the arse on the seat.

I find this topic hilarious, car people vs bike people. By the way I have 1 bike, 1 family car, and 1 classic car, so which am I?

So let me tell you my reason for biking to work and back everyday,
1. It's quicker. 2. It's cheaper 3. It's exercise.

So let's take point 3, EXERCISE, and also bear in mind the obesity problem in our country. Do you honestly think any government would want to discourage exercise (in our case biking), by taxing and controlling cyclists?

Perhaps I should just waste money on another car, fuel, and then expect the NHS to pick up the bill for my fat reduction surgery? Hmmmmmm....

On 19/08/2014 13:15, Dean Punchard wrote:
I find this topic hilarious, car people vs bike people. By the way I have 1 bike, 1 family car, and 1 classic car, so which am I?

So let me tell you my reason for biking to work and back everyday,
1. It's quicker. 2. It's cheaper 3. It's exercise.

So let's take point 3, EXERCISE, and also bear in mind the obesity problem in our country. Do you honestly think any government would want to discourage exercise (in our case biking), by taxing and controlling cyclists?

Perhaps I should just waste money on another car, fuel, and then expect the NHS to pick up the bill for my fat reduction surgery? Hmmmmmm....

They could also save quite a bit of money in emergency medical treatment
by ensuring that cyclists were aware of and followed the rules of the
road, with sanctions short of the current ad hoc death penalty for those
that don't.

Presumably you are one of the many who are, but a significant number of
cyclists, especially in London, either believe they are invulnerable, or
that the rules of the road don't apply to them.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Dean Punchard" wrote in message
...

I find this topic hilarious, car people vs bike people. By the way I have 1
bike, 1 family car, and 1 classic car, so which am I?

So let me tell you my reason for biking to work and back everyday,
1. It's quicker. 2. It's cheaper 3. It's exercise.

So let's take point 3, EXERCISE, and also bear in mind the obesity problem
in our country. Do you honestly think any government would want to
discourage exercise (in our case biking), by taxing and controlling
cyclists?

Perhaps I should just waste money on another car, fuel, and then expect the
NHS to pick up the bill for my fat reduction surgery? Hmmmmmm....

Hmmm... Sounds like you are one of those affluent capitalist creatures.

in 1329488 20140819 132140 John Williamson wrote:
On 19/08/2014 13:15, Dean Punchard wrote:
I find this topic hilarious, car people vs bike people. By the way I have 1 bike, 1 family car, an
d 1 classic car, so which am I?

So let me tell you my reason for biking to work and back everyday,
1. It's quicker. 2. It's cheaper 3. It's exercise.

So let's take point 3, EXERCISE, and also bear in mind the obesity problem in our country. Do you
honestly think any government would want to discourage exercise (in our case biking), by taxing and
controlling cyclists?

Perhaps I should just waste money on another car, fuel, and then expect the NHS to pick up the bil
l for my fat reduction surgery? Hmmmmmm....

They could also save quite a bit of money in emergency medical treatment
by ensuring that cyclists were aware of and followed the rules of the
road, with sanctions short of the current ad hoc death penalty for those
that don't.

Presumably you are one of the many who are, but a significant number of
cyclists, especially in London, either believe they are invulnerable, or
that the rules of the road don't apply to them.

Just be grateful that the crazy ones aren't behind the wheel of a car.
(I nearly said "behind the wheel of a white van" but many of them are)

On 09/08/2014 08:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive
George wrote:

On 08/08/2014 22:38, Mike Barnes wrote:

I disagree. A bell communicates its message immediately, but someone
hearing a voice has no idea what it's about or whether it's coming from
a cyclist or a pedestrian.

And if you use your voice in good time (as you should) you'll need to
shout, and generally speaking people don't like being shouted at.

You don't need to shout, you just need to make yourself heard. I
believe it's called projecting.

Shout what? Something like "Get out of my ****ing way!"? That do?

You've obviously not been paying any attention to what I write. I use a
greeting. It works, people don't take offence.

When going fast on a bike, having a squeaky brake works well - the
back one on the tandem can be heard quite a long way off if I do it
right. Going fast is likely to be downhill, hands are already on the
brakes, so it's way faster than a bell would be.

Not if your bell is properly positioned on the handlebars so you can
work it and the brakes at the same time.

You don't really know how bike controls are laid out do you. There is
nowhere where the bell can be placed that it's also always available at
the same time as braking on the tandem as well as riding normally.

On 09/08/2014 13:40, Mal wrote:
On 09/08/2014 00:37, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 21:55, Mal wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:55, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything
and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they
would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A
bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a
greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people
work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.


Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians. Bloody good idea. I've warned a few loony
tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the gtreater risk if we
choose the right moment to totter sideways so ring their bell.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

Which bit of "There seems to be no difference in the reaction between
using a bell and using a suitable greeting" didn't you understand?

Your point being? (assuming you have one) All right then, wherever I've
written "bell" accept I also mean "any other form of polite warning". OK
now?

I'm happy with that, yes.

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Jabba wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?

No and No. Why would a bike need lights permanently fitted ?

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the
human voice was a suitable audible warning device.

Any ruling is completely irrelevant, plenty will just shout
when there is someone they are likely to run into if the
other party doesn't get out of the way etc with a bike.

A shout could mean anything

But usually does get people's attention and is much
easier to do when the **** hits the fan on a bike.

and I think people are quite likely to ignore it,

Not likely when the bike is headed towards them
and the bike rider has got their attention by shouting.

on the basis that they would rather not get
involved with somebody shouting in the street.

Different matter entirely when the one doing the
shouting his heading towards you at a rate of knots
on their bike. Only fools ignore that situation.

A bicycle bell was a very distinctive sound

But few bike riders ever used them in that situation.

and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

Bull****.

Mal wrote
Clive George wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.

Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians.

Can't say I have ever had anyone ring a bell at me, in Australia.

And I do walk for exercise on very rough bush tracks where
plenty of loons zoom around on their bikes, with me normally
listening to Radio National podcasts on my bluetooth headset.

I usually do hear them coming up behind me and get off the
track and when I don't, no one has ever rung a bell at me.

Bloody good idea.

I don't agree.

I've warned a few loony tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the
gtreater risk if we choose the right moment to totter sideways so ring
their bell.

I just get right off the track and let them thru and
always get a decent acknowledgement from the
bike rider.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

I've never seen any publicity at all.

HarpingOn wrote
Mike Barnes wrote

But it's not such a serious problem. Runners go more slowly, they make
more noise, and they're less of a risk to pedestrians.

I make much less noise when running than cycling.

That isnt true of any of the runners and bike riders I have ever come
across.

Doesn't help much when the peddos commonly use headphones.

Yeah, I do.

Never use headphones when leisure walking, cycling or running.

I do it all the time and it works fine.

I can hear bike riders and joggers coming up behind me and
even the very occasional person who walks faster than me too.

I use a Nokia BH-505 bluetooth headset.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:54:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip


A shout could mean anything

But usually does get people's attention and is much
easier to do when the **** hits the fan on a bike.


I see no reason why you call a pedestrian a "fan" - it is unlikely that they
are indeed a fan of psycholists.

I can see why you called the cyclist a ****: most people do.

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:35:13 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:54:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"

wrote:



snip





A shout could mean anything



But usually does get people's attention and is much

easier to do when the **** hits the fan on a bike.





I see no reason why you call a pedestrian a "fan" - it is unlikely that they

are indeed a fan of psycholists.



I can see why you called the cyclist a ****: most people do.

If there are a few people around a shout is not going to have great significance whereas the distinct sound of a bell generally brings attention. Beside, I would regard two or three 'tings' on a bell more civilised and friendly that a great shout.

So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?

On 21/08/2014 13:03, fred wrote:

If there are a few people around a shout is not going to have great significance whereas the distinct sound of a bell generally brings attention. Beside, I would regard two or three 'tings' on a bell more civilised and friendly that a great shout.

So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?

I have mentioned this a couple of times earlier in the thread, but
people do keep missing it.

If we're talking roads or shared paths with pedestrians meandering
about, I call out, not shout, and it's normally "Hello" or "all right"
or some other such greeting. I call out sufficiently far in advance to
allow people to take appropriate action. This can be further than a bell
may be heard - I'll not wait till I'm a couple of metres behind
somebody. It seems to work pretty well - I don't get grumpy looks.

Shouts at people outside motor vehicles are reserved for the situations
when I'd use the horn if I was in a car, ie pretty darned rare, and
depending on the nature of the problem can get a bit incoherent towards
"Oy" or "Aaaargh".

Shouts at people inside motor vehicles are normally a way of expressing
my feeling that their driving is **** and they should take more care to
try not running me off the road. Ie similar to how one may use the horn
in a car, only more frequent.

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:54:24 +1000, "Rod
wrote:

snip


A shout could mean anything

But usually does get people's attention and is much
easier to do when the **** hits the fan on a bike.


I see no reason why you call a pedestrian a "fan" - it is unlikely that they
are indeed a fan of psycholists.

I can see why you called the cyclist a ****: most people do.


Pedal powered organ donors.

"fred" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:35:13 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:54:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"

wrote:



snip





A shout could mean anything



But usually does get people's attention and is much

easier to do when the **** hits the fan on a bike.





I see no reason why you call a pedestrian a "fan" - it is unlikely that
they

are indeed a fan of psycholists.



I can see why you called the cyclist a ****: most people do.

If there are a few people around a shout is not going to have great
significance

It will get their attention.

whereas the distinct sound of a bell generally brings attention.

So will a shout.

Beside, I would regard two or three 'tings' on a
bell more civilised and friendly that a great shout.

No one said anything about a great shout.

So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?

I just say hi, or something like that. Works fine.

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
snip



If there are a few people around a shout is not going to have great

significance



It will get their attention.






It may and it may not. A shout among a scattering of people could easily be ignored.

whereas the distinct sound of a bell generally brings attention.



So will a shout.



Beside, I would regard two or three 'tings' on a

bell more civilised and friendly that a great shout.



No one said anything about a great shout.


Wrong. I just did




So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?



I just say hi, or something like that. Works fine.

WTF Bicycle bells have been in existence for years so have proved their usefulness. Why take the chance that a shout might be mis-interpreted whereas a bicycle bell is a very distinctive and is the acknowledged way to do it. Bicycle bells are not that expensive. And if it doesn't work then you can holler like a pikey.

In message , fred
writes
So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?



I just say hi, or something like that. Works fine.

WTF Bicycle bells have been in existence for years so have proved
their usefulness. Why take the chance that a shout might be
mis-interpreted whereas a bicycle bell is a very distinctive and is the
acknowledged way to do it. Bicycle bells are not that expensive. And if
it doesn't work then you can holler like a pikey.

Sadly my hearing no longer responds to the *ting* of a modern bike bell
and on a couple of occasions the cyclists response to an admonishment
has been *I did ring my bell*!

I would like cyclists on dual use routes: bridleways, byways, tow paths,
to be required to give adequate warning when approaching pedestrians
from the rear.


--
Tim Lamb

On Friday, August 22, 2014 3:19:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , fred

writes

So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?







I just say hi, or something like that. Works fine.



WTF Bicycle bells have been in existence for years so have proved

their usefulness. Why take the chance that a shout might be

mis-interpreted whereas a bicycle bell is a very distinctive and is the

acknowledged way to do it. Bicycle bells are not that expensive. And if

it doesn't work then you can holler like a pikey.



Sadly my hearing no longer responds to the *ting* of a modern bike bell

and on a couple of occasions the cyclists response to an admonishment

has been *I did ring my bell*!



I would like cyclists on dual use routes: bridleways, byways, tow paths,

to be required to give adequate warning when approaching pedestrians

from the rear.





--

Tim Lamb

A notice on one of our local tow paths requests that cyclists give two tings on their bell when approaching pedestrians.

Of course cycling on a quiet country road or on a tow path is totally different to cycling in heavy traffic. Most motorists in their cocoon will not hear either a bell or a shout.

Personally when approaching pedestrians on a tow path I will slow right down until they hear me. A shout may be regarded as ill mannered and/or upset them as might even a polite ting. Best to be certain. On two wheels you are vulnerable to a shove.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT), fred wrote:

snip


If there are a few people around a shout is not going to have great significance whereas the distinct sound of a bell generally brings attention. Beside, I would regard two or three 'tings' on a bell more civilised and friendly that a great shout.

So what do all you people who shout actually shout ?


"Coming through" and "get out of my ****ing way" seem to be the most popular.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:35:52 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

snip


Shouts at people inside motor vehicles are normally a way of expressing
my feeling that their driving is **** and they should take more care to
try not running me off the road. Ie similar to how one may use the horn
in a car, only more frequent.


Do you ever bang on the roof or side of a car in order to vent your
frustration?

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:09:23 -0700 (PDT), fred wrote:

snip


WTF Bicycle bells have been in existence for years so have proved their usefulness. Why take the chance that a shout might be mis-interpreted whereas a bicycle bell is a very distinctive and is the acknowledged way to do it. Bicycle bells are not that expensive. And if it doesn't work then you can holler like a pikey.


You may be forgetting that they are of considerable weight - which can add a
couple of seconds on to the time to cycle home.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:19:49 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

I would like cyclists on dual use routes: bridleways, byways, tow paths,
to be required to give adequate warning when approaching pedestrians
from the rear.



As the HC says: "be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and
partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for
example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be
fitted."

But we know that cyclists ignore the recommendations of the Highway Code.

On 16/08/2014 06:40, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 20:43, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

The hell they are.
Outside rush hour they are empty unless you reduce the service to a
tenth of rush hour.

Have you looked at a bus closely lately?

Yes.

Most services now are purely
commercial and if they don't carry enough passengers to pay (Average
about 30% of the potential maximum over the route length), they're
removed from the timetable.

Most are nearly empty.

There are still some subsidised services,
but they are getting fewer by the year.

Maybe, but not in a noticeable way around here.
In fact I think there are more services now than last year.


And I didn't say they *always* fit 50 or more passengers into the space,
I said they *can* fit over 50 passengers into the space. IME this only
matters in the rush hour periods, when cyclists are also more common,
and cause more holdups.



Cyclists seldom travel slower than the buses except in bus lanes when
they can't get past the three or four buses in front waiting to join the
queue of cars at the end of the bus lane. The queue caused by the cars
trying to get out of the next bit of bus lane a few hundred yards down
the road!

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:


Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace. When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on the
pavement.

They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could be a problem.

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:23:59 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a
friend who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath,
between footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village
and footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear
a helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC
also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual
footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK
to ride on footpaths in the country?

I would say it's knock for knock. Both should have ben looking more carefully.

--
REALITY.EXE corrupt. Reboot universe (Y/N)?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs 1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the car has 179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold the vegetables while you chop.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I treated as a car?

--
They say that when a man holds a woman's hand before marriage, it is
love; after marriage it is self-defense.

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

On 20/08/2014 21:01, Rod Speed wrote:
Mal wrote
Clive George wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything
and I think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that
they would rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the
street. A bicycle bell was a very distinctive sound and gave
pedestrians much better warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people
work out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the
dithering when friends use a bell in a similar situation.

Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells
should be rung to warn pedestrians.

Can't say I have ever had anyone ring a bell at me, in Australia.

And I do walk for exercise on very rough bush tracks where
plenty of loons zoom around on their bikes, with me normally
listening to Radio National podcasts on my bluetooth headset.

I usually do hear them coming up behind me and get off the
track and when I don't, no one has ever rung a bell at me.

Bloody good idea.

I don't agree.

I've warned a few loony tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the
gtreater risk if we choose the right moment to totter sideways so ring
their bell.

I just get right off the track and let them thru and
always get a decent acknowledgement from the
bike rider.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

I've never seen any publicity at all.

WA way ahead of the east again!!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:18:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the car has
179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

Gosh, so E equals a half m v-squared? Well, who'd-a thunk it, eh?

Try driving and riding sensibly, not hitting things, and obeying the
rules of the road. Then we shall get on.

How does your argument change the fact that a bike is nowhere near as dangerous as a car?

--
A child is for life, not just for benefits.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

--
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet -- Napoleon Bonaparte

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

--
Remember when you were kid and you used to blow bubbles?
Well, I saw him the other day and he says hello.