7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
Your seven cyclists doing just whatever they want were just the tip of a
very large iceberg.
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from
liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:21:36 +0000, Spike wrote:
Your seven cyclists doing just whatever they want were just the tip of a
very large iceberg.
They were all working for one of these app-based outfits. Fucking menace.
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
On 2023-11-21, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
It doesn't surprise me when the usual trolls attribute false content
to a web page, but I'm disappointed to see you doing it.
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
--
Colin Bignell
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 14:50:46 UTC, Colin Bignell wrote:changed.
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
--
Colin Bignell
Whenever the suicyclists felt like it...
I passed my cycling proficiency test age 10 or 11 and even then I knew that a cycle needed to have a "warning of approach" (e.g. bell}, a reflectors and lights if being ridden during lighting up time (sunset +30 - sunrise - 30). The last has now
On 22/11/2023 09:45, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
It doesn't surprise me when the usual trolls attribute false content
to a web page, but I'm disappointed to see you doing it.
Had I been quoting from the page, the text would have been enclosed in
single quotes. The comment is entirely my own opinion.
On 2023-11-22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:45, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>>>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested, >>>> you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light >>>> regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
It doesn't surprise me when the usual trolls attribute false content
to a web page, but I'm disappointed to see you doing it.
Had I been quoting from the page, the text would have been enclosed in
single quotes. The comment is entirely my own opinion.
It was a disappointingly disingenuous post then,
especially
considering that Cycling UK is well known for encouraging compliance
with the law and that the linked page says "Most people know that it
is illegal to cycle on a public road after dark without lights and reflectors."
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from
liability.
That's a misinterpretation.
On 22/11/2023 12:27, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:45, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited >>>>>> traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from
liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested, >>>>> you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light >>>>> regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
It doesn't surprise me when the usual trolls attribute false content
to a web page, but I'm disappointed to see you doing it.
Had I been quoting from the page, the text would have been enclosed in
single quotes. The comment is entirely my own opinion.
It was a disappointingly disingenuous post then,
Not intentionally, but I sometimes forget that on Usenet, anything that
can be misinterpreted probably will be.
especially
considering that Cycling UK is well known for encouraging compliance
with the law and that the linked page says "Most people know that it
is illegal to cycle on a public road after dark without lights and
reflectors."
Most is not all, so my comment agrees with what they say, but coming
from the opposite direction.
On 22/11/2023 11:54, notya...@gmail.com wrote:changed.
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 14:50:46 UTC, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
--
Colin Bignell
Whenever the suicyclists felt like it...
I passed my cycling proficiency test age 10 or 11 and even then I knew that a cycle needed to have a "warning of approach" (e.g. bell}, a reflectors and lights if being ridden during lighting up time (sunset +30 - sunrise - 30). The last has now
Apparently, the rest of Europe did not accept the UK Court ruling that a shout is an acceptable warning of approach, so bells are still required
in the EU. I wish they were here as it is a distinctive sound, unlike a shout.
On 2023-11-21, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
It doesn't surprise me when the usual trolls attribute false content
to a web page, but I'm disappointed to see you doing it.
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react >unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
On 2023-11-22, Colin Bignell wrote:
Apparently, the rest of Europe did not accept the UK Court ruling that a
shout is an acceptable warning of approach, so bells are still required
in the EU. I wish they were here as it is a distinctive sound, unlike a
shout.
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react
unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless, self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
Mark
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced consistently for all road users.
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react
unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a
Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a
shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully
permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless, >> self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering. >>
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced
consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some "petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is undoubtedly true.
On 22/11/2023 23:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced >>> consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some
"petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is
undoubtedly true.
Bigots are everywhere.
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced
consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some "petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is undoubtedly true.
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:21:36 +0000, Spike wrote:
Your seven cyclists doing just whatever they want were just the tip of a >>> very large iceberg.
They were all working for one of these app-based outfits. Fucking menace.
What is it, some kind of wannabe Google Streetview? Maybe the company
can be held responsible for it.
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two
ridiculously
young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me
unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react
unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a
Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a
shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully
permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all >>> pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they >>> are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering. >>>
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the >> person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and skip-lorries?
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with
his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and
build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has >> really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a
bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race >> you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of >> your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously >> young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
On 2023-11-23, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 23:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited >>>>>> traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt >>>>> that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced >>>> consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some
"petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is
undoubtedly true.
Bigots are everywhere.
That's quite a rapid and remarkable pivot you've done there
from not wishing to call anyone a bigot
to calling a great many people bigots.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a bicycle.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react
unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when
they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes
they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a
Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a
shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully
permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless, >> self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering. >>
Mark
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
On 22/11/2023 11:54, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 14:50:46 UTC, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:Whenever the suicyclists felt like it...
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from >>>> liability.
This is what Cycling UK says:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
As there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be trained or tested,
you probably shouldn't expect all of them even to know there are light
regulations for bikes, much less what they are.
-- Colin Bignell
I passed my cycling proficiency test age 10 or 11 and even then I
knew that a cycle needed to have a "warning of approach" (e.g. bell},
a reflectors and lights if being ridden during lighting up time
(sunset +30 - sunrise - 30). The last has now changed.
Apparently, the rest of Europe did not accept the UK Court ruling that
a shout is an acceptable warning of approach, so bells are still
required in the EU. I wish they were here as it is a distinctive sound, >unlike a shout.
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in >> the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how rare this result is.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists - it
is just that we have a moto-normative society and most people do not
'see' those.
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in >> the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how rare this result is.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists
- it
is just that we have a moto-normative society and most people do not
'see' those.
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a
Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a
shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully
permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless, >> self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the >person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a >disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the >public, though perhaps younger than average.
On 2023-11-22, Roger Hayter wrote:
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
To be fair, I am certain that Mark is smarter than that; he's merely >explaining the thinking of those who are not.
On 23 Nov 2023 at 01:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a
bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react
unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when >>>>> they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes >>>>> they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a >>>> Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a
shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully >>>> permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all >>>> pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they >>>> are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the >>> person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and
skip-lorries?
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the
wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when
making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with
his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and
build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has >>> really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a >>> bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race >>> you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of >>> your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously >>> young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
Because they are pedestrians too.
On 2023-11-23, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 23:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited >>>>>> traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt >>>>> that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced >>>> consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some
"petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is
undoubtedly true.
Bigots are everywhere.
That's quite a rapid and remarkable pivot you've done there from not
wishing to call anyone a bigot to calling a great many people bigots.
On 2023-11-22, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:43, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
Well, I would love to have a lot more police out on the roads
enforcing traffic law strictly on ALL vehicle users. I somehow doubt
that the petrolhead bigots (I don't mean you) would agree, though.
I wouldn't like to call anyone a bigot who wishes the law to be enforced
consistently for all road users.
But that's not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that some "petrolhead bigots" want the law strictly enforced against all cyclists
but do not want it strictly enforced against all motorists - which is undoubtedly true.
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in >> the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how rare this result is.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists - it
is just that we have a moto-normative society and most people do not
'see' those.
On 23/11/2023 08:48 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 01:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a >>>>>> bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react >>>>>> unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when >>>>>> they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes >>>>>> they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get
angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a >>>>> Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is
completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a >>>>> shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully >>>>> permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all >>>>> pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they >>>>> are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the
person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and
skip-lorries?
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the >>> wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when >>> making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with
his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and
build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has >>>> really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a >>>> bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race
you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of
your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously
young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
Because they are pedestrians too.
But would that be logical for anyone?
We are all well aware that not all pedestrians are equally likely to
commit street crime and that there are a number of visual cues as to
whether the person approaching from the opposite direction is likely to
wish us harm.
Should people be afraid of being "mugged" (ie, robbed) by... a brace of
... Catholic nuns?
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how
rare this result is.
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted,
and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow running-dogs.
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists from liability.
On 23 Nov 2023 at 15:15:59 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 08:48 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 01:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a >>>>>>> bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react >>>>>>> unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when >>>>>>> they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move
suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes >>>>>>> they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get >>>>>>> angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a >>>>>> Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is >>>>>> completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a >>>>>> shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully >>>>>> permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the
person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a >>>>> disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and
skip-lorries?
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the >>>> wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when >>>> making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with
his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and
build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has
really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a >>>>> bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race
you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of
your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously
young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
Because they are pedestrians too.
But would that be logical for anyone?
We are all well aware that not all pedestrians are equally likely to
commit street crime and that there are a number of visual cues as to
whether the person approaching from the opposite direction is likely to
wish us harm.
Should people be afraid of being "mugged" (ie, robbed) by... a brace of
... Catholic nuns?
Well there you are then. Why should cyclists (who are after all just pedestrians riding bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive
just because other cyclists do.
They have nothing meaningful in common except
that they happen to be riding a bicycle. Generalisations about "cyclists" are no more rational or reasonable than generalisations about people with brown eyes - or brown shoes.
Or pedestrians. Look at the individuals. (Though my
mother and father had independently come to the conclusion that the most aggressive and vicious people they had come across were catholic nuns while they were in school.)
On 23/11/2023 03:22 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote: >>>
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in >>> the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for
cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how
rare this result is.
That's an alternative way of saying "It's only a few pedestrians who are killed by lawbreaking cyclists, so it doesn't matter".
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
Even if true, what has that to do with the issue?
There certainly can't be all that many drivers who are involved in a
fatal accident (especially on a FOOTway) and are not brought to book and adequately punished.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed
harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably
also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists
Not per capita.
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I
have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn red).
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:21:15 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 03:22 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote: >>>>
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess >>>> others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, inThat isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. >>>
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for
cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down >>>> using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how >>> rare this result is.
That's an alternative way of saying "It's only a few pedestrians who are
killed by lawbreaking cyclists, so it doesn't matter".
I am saying that in proportion it is a much smaller problem than the
problem caused by drivers. Obviously when these tragic incidents happen people should be punished, but it is a rare occurence when compared to
death by motor vehicle, even when the pedestrians are on the footway.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
Even if true, what has that to do with the issue?
That both lists would be equally pointless.
There certainly can't be all that many drivers who are involved in a
fatal accident (especially on a FOOTway) and are not brought to book and
adequately punished.
Except that knocks the other two tragic examples that Spike gave - both
of which happened on the road.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed
harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably >>> also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists
Not per capita.
I would take that bet.
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
Rubbish.
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I
have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex
junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn
red).
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
On 23/11/2023 08:09 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 15:15:59 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 08:48 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 01:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a >>>>>>>> bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react >>>>>>>> unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when >>>>>>>> they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move >>>>>>>> suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes >>>>>>>> they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get >>>>>>>> angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a >>>>>>> Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is >>>>>>> completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a >>>>>>> shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully >>>>>>> permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the
person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a >>>>>> disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic.
Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and >>>>> skip-lorries?
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the >>>>> wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when >>>>> making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with >>>>> his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and >>>>> build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has
really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a
bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race
you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of
your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously
young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
Because they are pedestrians too.
But would that be logical for anyone?
We are all well aware that not all pedestrians are equally likely to
commit street crime and that there are a number of visual cues as to
whether the person approaching from the opposite direction is likely to
wish us harm.
Should people be afraid of being "mugged" (ie, robbed) by... a brace of
... Catholic nuns?
Well there you are then. Why should cyclists (who are after all just
pedestrians riding bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive
just because other cyclists do.
Because so many (a significant majority, I'd say) *do so* regularly!
They have nothing meaningful in common except
that they happen to be riding a bicycle. Generalisations about "cyclists" are
no more rational or reasonable than generalisations about people with brown >> eyes - or brown shoes.
That is about as ridiculous as you could be by trying really hard.
Or pedestrians. Look at the individuals. (Though my
mother and father had independently come to the conclusion that the most
aggressive and vicious people they had come across were catholic nuns while >> they were in school.)
Are you *really* trying to retaliate with an accusation that Catholic
nuns *are* likely to commit violent street robberies?
And even that it's more likely than a cyclist running you down on a
FOOTway or on a pedestrian crossing with the traffic-facing lights at red?
Oh, come OFF it.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:38:56 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Roger Hayter wrote:
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair
cross-section of the public, though perhaps younger than average.
To be fair, I am certain that Mark is smarter than that; he's merely >>explaining the thinking of those who are not.
Thank you for that vote of confidence :-)
But there are a number of important points to be made here. One is that people tend to judge any out-group by reference to the members of that group that they have the most frequent, or most memorable, interactions with. And another is the negative interactions are usually more memorable than
positive interactions. That's not necessarily rational, but it is understandable.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:21:15 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 03:22 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote: >>>>
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess >>>> others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, inThat isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. >>>
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for
cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down >>>> using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how >>> rare this result is.
That's an alternative way of saying "It's only a few pedestrians who are
killed by lawbreaking cyclists, so it doesn't matter".
I am saying that in proportion it is a much smaller problem than the
problem caused by drivers.
Obviously when these tragic incidents happen
people should be punished, but it is a rare occurence when compared to
death by motor vehicle, even when the pedestrians are on the footway.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
Even if true, what has that to do with the issue?
That both lists would be equally pointless.
There certainly can't be all that many drivers who are involved in a
fatal accident (especially on a FOOTway) and are not brought to book and
adequately punished.
Except that knocks the other two tragic examples that Spike gave - both
of which happened on the road.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed
harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably >>> also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists
Not per capita.
I would take that bet.
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
Rubbish.
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I
have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex
junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn
red).
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
On 23 Nov 2023 at 20:27:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 08:09 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 15:15:59 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 08:48 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 at 01:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 22/11/2023 09:44 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Nov 2023 at 18:42:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:05:24 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I can understand that, and I would have no problem with requiring a >>>>>>>>> bell (I have one anyway), but the problem is that pedestrians react >>>>>>>>> unpredictably to them (especially on shared-use paths, but also when >>>>>>>>> they are about to step out into the road): sometimes they move >>>>>>>>> suddenly into the path of the bike, sometimes they freeze, sometimes >>>>>>>>> they misinterpret the bell as a Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal and get >>>>>>>>> angry. Sometimes they look in the direction of the bell!
Part of the problem, though, is that some cyclists do use the bell as a
Toad-of-Toad-Hall signal, particularly in circumstances where it is >>>>>>>> completely unjustified. I have seen cyclists riding at speed along a >>>>>>>> shared-use path (or even on a footway where the cyclist is not lawfully
permitted to ride), merrily dinging the bell as they go and expecting all
pedestrians to make way for them. That is precisely the kind of thoughtless,
self-entitled behaviour which gives cyclists a bad name. And even if they
are the minority, they are the ones that people will remember encountering.
This is sort of logical:Does that also apply to the equally-human drivers of Range Rovers and >>>>>> skip-lorries?
muggers are (largely) pedestrians;
This person coming towards me is a pedestrian;
Therefore I am at imminent risk of being beaten and robbed.
Unless we are very timid, we generally observe other characteristics of the
person before panicking.
You are using the syllogism:
Some cyclists are rude, aggressive and even violent;
This person coming towards me is a cyclist;
Therefore I am about to be insulted or attacked.
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a >>>>>>> disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
Perhaps if you looked at cyclists as human like yourself and assessed them as
human individuals rather than fearsome 'others' you might not panic. >>>
We all read a lot of invective against them, simply for being behind the >>>>>> wheel.
[Mind you, a skip-lorry once partly demolished my front garden wall when >>>>>> making a three-point turn. It turned out that I had had dealings with >>>>>> his boss and he sent along a team of builders to complete the job and >>>>>> build a new one.]
I have been jostled and shouted at by cyclists, not very often, and it has
really not led me to fear or despise all cyclists on sight. Or indeed to blame
"cyclists" rather than people for the misbehaviour of some cyclists. By riding
a bicycle you really don't become responsible for other people riding a a
bicycle. In the same way that by being a member of a visibly different race
you don't somehow become responsible for all crimes committed by members of
your ethnic group.
I have actually been mugged, too; though unsuccessfully by two ridiculously
young and small lads who didn't utilise a knife. That has not made me unduly
suspicious of little old ladies, or the average commuter.
Why would it make you nervous of little old ladies?
Because they are pedestrians too.
But would that be logical for anyone?
We are all well aware that not all pedestrians are equally likely to
commit street crime and that there are a number of visual cues as to
whether the person approaching from the opposite direction is likely to >>>> wish us harm.
Should people be afraid of being "mugged" (ie, robbed) by... a brace of >>>> ... Catholic nuns?
Well there you are then. Why should cyclists (who are after all just
pedestrians riding bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive
just because other cyclists do.
Because so many (a significant majority, I'd say) *do so* regularly!
They have nothing meaningful in common except
that they happen to be riding a bicycle. Generalisations about "cyclists" are
no more rational or reasonable than generalisations about people with brown >>> eyes - or brown shoes.
That is about as ridiculous as you could be by trying really hard.
Only because you cannot seem to take in that cyclists virtually cover the whole spectrum of the human condition, and generalising about what offences the majority of "cyclists" commit is seriously irrational thinking.
For a start, the majority of cyclists are probably children!
Or pedestrians. Look at the individuals. (Though my
mother and father had independently come to the conclusion that the most >>> aggressive and vicious people they had come across were catholic nuns while >>> they were in school.)
Are you *really* trying to retaliate with an accusation that Catholic
nuns *are* likely to commit violent street robberies?
Not at all. You raised the idea that nuns were beyond reproach!
And even that it's more likely than a cyclist running you down on a
FOOTway or on a pedestrian crossing with the traffic-facing lights at red?
Oh, come OFF it.
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
Rubbish.
You're a cyclist, yes? :-)
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I >>> have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex
junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn >>> red).
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line
and would see it as normal and acceptable.
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line
and would see it as normal and acceptable.
On 23 Nov 2023 19:02:01 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down >>>> using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how >>> rare this result is.
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted,
and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric motorbikes.
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line
and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must* stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it is not safe to stop.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Andy Leighton wrote:
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
Rubbish.
You're a cyclist, yes? :-)
I cycle and am a pedestrian - actually I walk most of the time because
it is typically just as quick to walk into town rather than get the bus or
go by bike.
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I >>>> have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex
junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn >>>> red).
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line
and would see it as normal and acceptable.
I am not talking about near to the line. I am talking tens of metres
away from the stop line when the light goes to amber.
Also technically it is the same offence is it not - reg 33 of TSRGD?
You only go through on amber if it is unsafe to stop (ie you are so
close to the stop line that it might cause a collision due to sudden braking).
But then I am a mere untrained and untested cyclist who always stops
for red lights, and amber lights, and red and amber lights.
On 23 Nov 2023 19:02:01 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted,
and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric motorbikes.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:38:56 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Roger Hayter wrote:
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair cross-section of the
public, though perhaps younger than average.
To be fair, I am certain that Mark is smarter than that; he's merely >>explaining the thinking of those who are not.
Thank you for that vote of confidence :-)
But there are a number of important points to be made here. One is that people tend to judge any out-group by reference to the members of that group that they have the most frequent, or most memorable, interactions with. And another is the negative interactions are usually more memorable than
positive interactions. That's not necessarily rational, but it is understandable. In the wild, it's a necessary survival mechanism. There's a very good reason why some insects mimic wasps, for example. "Keep clear of the stripy flying things" is a valuable means of avoiding harm, and it doesn't matter that you're judging all stripy flying things by the minority that will actually hurt you.
On a completely different note, though, most in-groups resent being characterised by the behaviour of their miscreant minority, and yet at the same time tend to circle the wagons and treat an attack on any of them as an attack on all of them. Those positions are mutually exclusive, from a purely rational perspective, because the more you excuse or tolerate the misbehaviour of a minority of your cohort the more likely you are to be judged by their misbehaviour. But, on the other hand, from an in-group perspective they are still valuable members that you don't want to lose.
On 24/11/2023 01:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you
don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line
and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must* >> stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal >> group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it
is not safe to stop.
I didn't say anything about accelerating.
You made it up.
On 23/11/2023 03:22 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero....@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in
the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how rare this result is.That's an alternative way of saying "It's only a few pedestrians who are killed by lawbreaking cyclists, so it doesn't matter".
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or littleEven if true, what has that to do with the issue?
punishment.
There certainly can't be all that many drivers who are involved in a
fatal accident (especially on a FOOTway) and are not brought to book and adequately punished.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policingNot per capita.
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists
Cyclists operate on a non-compliant basis more or less all of the time.
I can recall offhand a few times in a fifty year driving history where I
have inadvertently transgressed at traffic lights (usually at complex junctions where I was looking at the wrong light. waiting for it to turn red). But many, if not most, cyclists simply ignore red traffic lights, whether at intersections or (very commonly) at pelicon crossings.
- it
is just that we have a moto-normative society and most people do not
'see' those.
On 24 Nov 2023 at 13:39:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/11/2023 01:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you >>>>> don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line >>>> and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must* >>> stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal >>> group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it
is not safe to stop.
I didn't say anything about accelerating.
You made it up.
Or perhaps I read the paragraph, still above, from Andy Leighton to which you replied. If you didn't notice the word "accelerate" then you approved of something you hadn't read properly, which is rarely wise.
[quoted text muted]
Most car drivers speed most of the time. 98% admit it. Probably more
so where limits are set unrealistically low.
On 2023-11-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:38:56 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>On 2023-11-22, Roger Hayter wrote:
May I suggest you can really only use this false logic if you have a
disposition to dislike cyclists? They are actually a fair
cross-section of the public, though perhaps younger than average.
To be fair, I am certain that Mark is smarter than that; he's merely >>>explaining the thinking of those who are not.
Thank you for that vote of confidence :-)
But there are a number of important points to be made here. One is that
people tend to judge any out-group by reference to the members of that group >> that they have the most frequent, or most memorable, interactions with. And >> another is the negative interactions are usually more memorable than
positive interactions. That's not necessarily rational, but it is
understandable.
I think it's worth refining that a little to say that *neutral*
interactions with a group are far less memorable than either positive
or negative interactions. And with a literal passing stranger like a
cyclist on the move there is little room for much positivity, so your
options are mostly limited to negative or neutral - especially in big
cities where a cheery wave from a passer-by would be considered most peculiar.
On 24 Nov 2023 at 13:39:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/11/2023 01:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you >>>>> don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line >>>> and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must* >>> stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal >>> group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it
is not safe to stop.
I didn't say anything about accelerating.
You made it up.
Or perhaps I read the paragraph, still above, from Andy Leighton to which you replied. If you didn't notice the word "accelerate" then you approved of something you hadn't read properly, which is rarely wise.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:06:42 -0800, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Most car drivers speed most of the time. 98% admit it. Probably more
so where limits are set unrealistically low.
Speak for yourself. I actively set my speed limiter and the only time
exceed it (bearing in mind it's a tad over cautious) is when on a
downhill.
Occasionally I will "boot it" on a motorway to get past a line of tight packed traffic. But my general inclination is to stick at the limit.
Mind you, these days it's hard to tell if people *are* obeying a speed
limit, or merely going as fast as the car in front (... repeat...) until
you reach the car that *is* obeying the speed limit. Certainly on the
30mph camera covered stretches in Brum.
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 19:02:01 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted, >>> and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric
motorbikes.
In your view, perhaps, but in the world of UK cycling they are just part of the scene, nothing separate about e-bikes whether standard or post-market illegally-modified.
A typical comment made at the time of Sakine Cihan’s death:
“Bit of a moral debate here. Chip an e-bike because you want to go faster than 15mph (doesn't seem unreasonable) but now you're riding without a licence, MoT? or insurance. Everyone 'howls like crazy' if a motorist
causes an accident and is found to have their licence suspended with no insurance. But you can easily get your road bike above 15mph (hmm?) Never ridden an e bike but when the motor 'kicks-in' is there a feeling (even
more if the bike's chipped) of having less control over slowing down (ie
just get the pedals going and suddenly you're up to, in this case, 30mph?).”
And there’s this on the state of e-bike cycling:
“Astonished that this idiot appears to have got away scot free. Regardless of blame, he was riding an illegal vehicle, he should at least have been found guilty of that. Big missed chance to send a message about these bikes
- I'm a big fan of ebikes as one kept me cycling through a period of
serious illness but I am sick of being cut up in cycle lanes by twats with 750W motors doing 35mph plus. This poor woman isn't going to be the last killed by one of them.”
On 24/11/2023 02:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 13:39:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/11/2023 01:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you >>>>>> don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line >>>>> and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must*
stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal >>>> group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it
is not safe to stop.
I didn't say anything about accelerating.
You made it up.
Or perhaps I read the paragraph, still above, from Andy Leighton to which you
replied. If you didn't notice the word "accelerate" then you approved of
something you hadn't read properly, which is rarely wise.
Please rest assured (though you ought already to have concluded this)
that my quoting another poster does NOT necessarily mean that I approve
of what poster had said.
On 2023-11-23, Andy Leighton wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 09:24:43 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote: >>>
Perhaps the other way to deal with this issue is for cyclists to assess
others as human individuals rather than an impediment to their progress, in >>> the same way that they view red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
That isn't unique to some cyclists. Some (plenty) of drivers also do
the same - and they commit other offences which are not offences for
cyclists.
Merely shouting “Get out of the f*****g way, I’m not stopping” (Rhiannon
Bennett’s killer, fined £2000) or “Get out of the way, I’m not stopping”
(Kim Briggs killer, 18 months in a soft YOI), or just mowing them down
using an illegal e-bike (Sakine Cihan’s killer, walked free)
That you had to use a non-cyclist in one of your three examples shows how
rare this result is.
Yup, counting an unregistered moped or motorcycle for this purpose is ridiculous.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
Well actually, "pedestrian killed by cyclist" is a kind of rare
man-bites-dog thing that makes the national news, especially stirred
up by certain kinds of "newspapers", whereas the routine deaths of pedestrians caused by drivers are less newsworthy.
So the only reasonable approach to things is to have far more policing
in general. In order to get the greatest harm reduction that will
inevitably mean that those that cause the greatest harm will be policed
harder than those that cause lesser harm. I think that you will probably
also find that drivers commit more offences overall than cyclists - it
is just that we have a moto-normative society and most people do not
'see' those.
+1
On 24 Nov 2023 at 15:21:42 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/11/2023 02:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 13:39:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/11/2023 01:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 01:42:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 23/11/2023 09:08 pm, Andy Leighton wrote:
snip
I've seen it happen a fair bit - and I mean on a solid red.
But many more drivers accelerate through an amber? Now it may be you >>>>>>> don't but a lot of drivers do that routinely.
That is not going through on red (the amber phase is there for a
reason). I'd expect cyclists to do the same if near enough to the line >>>>>> and would see it as normal and acceptable.
No! It is against the law to accelerate when the light is amber. You *must*
stop unless it is so near it is unsafe to do so. At which point it is too late
to accelerate. Even if you may not like that law I am surprised on a legal
group you endorse crossing amber "if safe" when the law says do so only if it
is not safe to stop.
I didn't say anything about accelerating.
You made it up.
Or perhaps I read the paragraph, still above, from Andy Leighton to which you
replied. If you didn't notice the word "accelerate" then you approved of >>> something you hadn't read properly, which is rarely wise.
Please rest assured (though you ought already to have concluded this)
that my quoting another poster does NOT necessarily mean that I approve
of what poster had said.
Even when you'd "expect cyclists to do the same"?
Why should cyclists (who are after all just pedestrians riding
bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive just
because other cyclists do.
In message <ks9psi...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:09:54 on Thu, 23
Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
Why should cyclists (who are after all just pedestrians ridingOr as I used to call them Cyclopeds. Entitled to ride on pavements and through pedestrianised areas, ignore red traffic lights, and perpetrate
bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive just
because other cyclists do.
any number of other anti-social behaviours.
Glad we got that sorted out.
--
Roland Perry
On 24 Nov 2023 09:30:19 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
On 23 Nov 2023 19:02:01 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote: >>
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted, >>>> and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric
motorbikes.
In your view, perhaps, but in the world of UK cycling they are just part of >> the scene, nothing separate about e-bikes whether standard or post-market
illegally-modified.
Are you a member of the "scene"? Are you a regular cyclist? All the reputable channels I know of only consider proper EAPCs.
“Astonished that this idiot appears to have got away scot free. Regardless >> of blame, he was riding an illegal vehicle, he should at least have been
found guilty of that. Big missed chance to send a message about these bikes >> - I'm a big fan of ebikes as one kept me cycling through a period of
serious illness but I am sick of being cut up in cycle lanes by twats with >> 750W motors doing 35mph plus. This poor woman isn't going to be the last
killed by one of them.”
Which kind of backs up my position. A proper EAPC kept that commenter cycling. Not the illegal vehicles (and the twats who ride them) he is complaining about.
Most car drivers speed most of the time. 98% admit it. Probably more
so where limits are set unrealistically low.
Speak for yourself. I actively set my speed limiter and the only time
exceed it (bearing in mind it's a tad over cautious) is when on a
downhill.
On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 17:52:45 UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ks9psi...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:09:54 on Thu, 23
Nov 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
Why should cyclists (who are after all just pedestrians riding
bicycles) be thought likely to do anything wrong/aggressive just
because other cyclists do.
Or as I used to call them Cyclopeds. Entitled to ride on pavements and
through pedestrianised areas, ignore red traffic lights, and perpetrate
any number of other anti-social behaviours.
Glad we got that sorted out.
Except you haven't.
Anyone walking is a pedestrian - like it or not, and they are top of
the hierarchy - they are allowed to use the road. Cyclists are both
road users and choose to be road users. With that comes responsibility
or in the case of a large proportion of cyclists irresponsibility. In >particular they are not allowed to ride on the pavement unless there
are signs permitting it.
See [new] Highway Code rule H2.
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted, >>> and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric
motorbikes.
In your view, perhaps, but in the world of UK cycling they are just part of >the scene, nothing separate about e-bikes whether standard or post-market >illegally-modified.
But it would be laughably easy to trawl the newspapers and get a much
larger list of drivers who have been let off with no or little
punishment.
Well actually, "pedestrian killed by cyclist" is a kind of rare
man-bites-dog thing that makes the national news, especially stirred
up by certain kinds of "newspapers", whereas the routine deaths of >pedestrians caused by drivers are less newsworthy.
On 21/11/2023 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
7 cyclists in the main road on my commute home last night.I live near Cambridge, and it's a city well known for its cyclists.
Not in convoy, individual. Weaving in and out of the 30mph limited
traffic with neither front nor rear light.
I imagine this is a result of the recent shift that exempts cyclists
from
liability.
A fairly large proportion of them are complete nutters.
About half of them have no lights at all. Those that have lights
sometimes have ones as bright as a car headlight - and which don't dip.
Those with sensible lights are in a small minority.
Bright clothing is almost unknown.
And traffic lights don't count.
This has not changed at all in the ten years I have lived in the area.
In message <ksb8pbFospkU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:30:19 on Fri, 24
Nov 2023, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> remarked:
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted, >>>> and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't
ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric
motorbikes.
In your view, perhaps, but in the world of UK cycling they are just part of >>the scene, nothing separate about e-bikes whether standard or post-market >>illegally-modified.
WHich just shows what scofflaws that "world" comprises of.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 13:07:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ksb8pbFospkU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:30:19 on Fri, 24
Nov 2023, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> remarked:
You appear to be out of touch. E-bikes are lauded, celebrated, promoted, >>>>> and reviewed in the cycling media, who clearly see them as fellow
running-dogs.
Yes proper ebikes are lauded and reviewed. Those illegal ebikes aren't >>>> ebikes in law (as in they are not EAPCs) - they are unlicensed electric >>>> motorbikes.
In your view, perhaps, but in the world of UK cycling they are just part of >>>the scene, nothing separate about e-bikes whether standard or post-market >>>illegally-modified.
WHich just shows what scofflaws that "world" comprises of.
Which maybe just goes to show that you are willing to believe any old
rubbish that confirms your biases. There is no evidence that cyclists
as a group are keen on such vehicles, IME there are plenty who even
dislike EAPCs.
This is a legal newsgroup so the vehicles that Spike talks about are
not cycles and the people who ride them are not cyclists. There can be
no debata about that - the law is very clear as to what is classed as
a cycle and what is not.
This is a legal newsgroup so the vehicles that Spike talks about are
not cycles and the people who ride them are not cyclists. There can be
no debata about that - the law is very clear as to what is classed as
a cycle and what is not.
Which is a big part of the problem. Cyclopeds seem oblivious to what two-wheeled objects are officially cycles, vs allowed under rules for electric cycles.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:13:04 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,392 |