Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
eastern european.

I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
cycling on the road/pavement.

Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
motorists?

Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on their
license as well as a fine?

thanks

"Aosmosis"  wrote in message 
news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> eastern european.
>
> I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> cycling on the road/pavement.
>
> Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> motorists?
>
> Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on their
> license as well as a fine?

No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper control of a 
bike, but it would result in a small fine if any policeman was small-minded 
enoug to want to make a 'detection' of it, rather than having a quiet word.

Aosmosis wrote:
> Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> eastern european.
> 
> I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> cycling on the road/pavement.
> 
> Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> motorists?
> 
> Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on their
> license as well as a fine?
> 
> thanks

Like with many traffic laws, I think you'll find that they think 
themselves exempt, and in the absence of policing they, like many, many 
motorists, just get away with it.

P.S. In the UK we have licences. Once you have one of those you are then 
licensed to do whatever the licence permits.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Bystander wrote:
|| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
|| news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
||| eastern european.
|||
||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
||| cycling on the road/pavement.
|||
||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
||| motorists?
|||
||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
||| their license as well as a fine?
||
|| No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
|| control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
|| policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
|| it, rather than having a quiet word.

For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other small-minded people 
involved, the policeman would be only one of them.

-- 
Rob

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> Bystander wrote:
> || "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
> || 
> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> ||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> ||| eastern european.
> |||
> ||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> ||| cycling on the road/pavement.
> |||
> ||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> ||| motorists?
> |||
> ||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
> ||| their license as well as a fine?
> ||
> || No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
> || control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
> || policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
> || it, rather than having a quiet word.
>
> For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other small-minded 
> people involved, the policeman would be only one of them.
>
> -- 
> Rob
>

What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an old lady 
on the pavement and killed her?

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> Bystander wrote:
> || "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
> || 
> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> ||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> ||| eastern european.
> |||
> ||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> ||| cycling on the road/pavement.
> |||
> ||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> ||| motorists?
> |||
> ||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
> ||| their license as well as a fine?
> ||
> || No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
> || control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
> || policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
> || it, rather than having a quiet word.
>
> For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other small-minded 
> people involved, the policeman would be only one of them.

Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes so 
many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way 
down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?

I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.

mentalguy2004 wrote:
|| "Rob"  wrote in message
|| news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
||| Bystander wrote:
||||| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
|||||
||| 
news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
|||||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
|||||| eastern european.
||||||
|||||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
|||||| cycling on the road/pavement.
||||||
|||||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
|||||| motorists?
||||||
|||||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
|||||| their license as well as a fine?
|||||
||||| No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
||||| control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
||||| policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
||||| it, rather than having a quiet word.
|||
||| For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other
||| small-minded people involved, the policeman would be only one of
||| them.
|||
||| --
||| Rob
|||
||
|| What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an
|| old lady on the pavement and killed her?

I dunno, what if someone dropped a lit fag-end which was blown by the wind 
into the window of a firework factory, causing a huge explosion resulting in 
loss of life. In either case someone will decide whether it was an 
unfortunate accident or something worse, eg. manslaughter.

FWIW I don't think people *should* be allowed to use mobile phones whilst 
cycling.

-- 
Rob

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:25:46 +0000, The Todal wrote
(in article ):

 
> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes so 
> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way 
> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
> 
> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined. 
> 
> 

So would I. I've paid for lots of cycle lanes around here recently but the 
fuckers still ride on the road. At 22 MPH with double whites. No insurance, 
no responsibility. Use the cycle lanes I pay for! Please! JHFCOAB.

-- 
remove stars for email
g*a*r*y*c*o*w*e*l*l*a*t*m*a*c*d*o*t*c*o*m
Stargazing blog at
<http://tinyurl.com/398eom>

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:De-dnXrWnJEjrujanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
> mentalguy2004 wrote:
> || "Rob"  wrote in message
> || news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> ||| Bystander wrote:
> ||||| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
> |||||
> ||| 
> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> |||||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> |||||| eastern european.
> ||||||
> |||||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> |||||| cycling on the road/pavement.
> ||||||
> |||||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> |||||| motorists?
> ||||||
> |||||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
> |||||| their license as well as a fine?
> |||||
> ||||| No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
> ||||| control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
> ||||| policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
> ||||| it, rather than having a quiet word.
> |||
> ||| For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other
> ||| small-minded people involved, the policeman would be only one of
> ||| them.
> |||
> ||| --
> ||| Rob
> |||
> ||
> || What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an
> || old lady on the pavement and killed her?
>
> I dunno, what if someone dropped a lit fag-end which was blown by the wind 
> into the window of a firework factory, causing a huge explosion resulting 
> in loss of life. In either case someone will decide whether it was an 
> unfortunate accident or something worse, eg. manslaughter.
>
> FWIW I don't think people *should* be allowed to use mobile phones whilst 
> cycling.

I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in traffic to pull 
out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around the corner on the 
pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my door. He got stroppy and 
phoned his Mum who came round and called the Police to try and have me 
arrested for careless driving! I was advised by the copper that the cyclist 
was in the wrong, but as he didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to 
"ask" his mother to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what 
her answer was.

The Todal wrote:
|| "Rob"  wrote in message
|| news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
||| Bystander wrote:
||||| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
|||||
||| 
news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
|||||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
|||||| eastern european.
||||||
|||||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
|||||| cycling on the road/pavement.
||||||
|||||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
|||||| motorists?
||||||
|||||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
|||||| their license as well as a fine?
|||||
||||| No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
||||| control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
||||| policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
||||| it, rather than having a quiet word.
|||
||| For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other
||| small-minded people involved, the policeman would be only one of
||| them.
||
|| Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that
|| causes so many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or
|| the wrong way down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no
|| right turn" sign?

I've no doubt that MP3 players, phones etc. play a very large part in it  - 
I can't believe anyone can concentrate properly whilst conversing or 
listening to loud music blaring into their ears.

|| I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.

Yes and so would I where there was a danger to others. The point was though, 
that *if* a prosecution is regarded as small-minded and petty, then so too 
must be the conviction.

-- 
Rob

> Yes and so would I where there was a danger to others. The point was 
> though,
> that *if* a prosecution is regarded as small-minded and petty, then so too 
> must be the conviction.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding. The decision to prosecute is one for 
the police and/or CPS. Once the case reaches court the bench is obliged to 
follow the law, and if the offence is made out a conviction must follow. 
There is a fair bit of leeway in sentencing though. The starting point would 
be a modest fine, but it could go up to a  big fine or down to a discharge. 
That's what the judiciary is for.

In message , Gary
wrote:

> 
> So would I. I've paid for lots of cycle lanes around here recently but the
> fuckers still ride on the road. At 22 MPH with double whites. No
> insurance, no responsibility. Use the cycle lanes I pay for! Please!
> JHFCOAB.
> 
If you've paid for any of the ones around here then you wuz robbed. They're
crap and not fit to cycle on - the road is far safer even with the traffic.

Dave
-- 
mail: da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...

In message , The Todal wrote:

> 
> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes so
> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way
> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
> 
Cyclists were doing those things long before the advent of mobile phones or
mp3 players.

> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.

Preferably only the ones breaking the law...

Dave
-- 
mail: da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:54:28 +0000, Gary  wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:25:46 +0000, The Todal wrote
>(in article ):
>
> 
>> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes so 
>> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way 
>> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>> 
>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined. 
>> 
>> 
>
>So would I. I've paid for lots of cycle lanes around here recently but the 
>fuckers still ride on the road. At 22 MPH with double whites. No insurance, 
>no responsibility. Use the cycle lanes I pay for! Please! JHFCOAB.

When they start being a practical alternative for "serious" cycling,
we will.

Until then, we will perfectly legally continue to use the road.

Somebody doing 22mph is almost certainly a fairly serious cyclist, and
the vast majority of cycle lanes are not fit for that type of use,
with far to many points where you have to stop, or even dismount, plus
a lot more general debris on the surface.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Actually, cats are quite good at domesticating humans.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Bystander wrote:
||| Yes and so would I where there was a danger to others. The point was
||| though,
||| that *if* a prosecution is regarded as small-minded and petty, then
||| so too must be the conviction.
||
|| That is a fundamental misunderstanding. The decision to prosecute is
|| one for the police and/or CPS. Once the case reaches court the bench
|| is obliged to follow the law, and if the offence is made out a
|| conviction must follow.

Quite true where the case is made out by provable facts, but, just like many 
alleged offences which are nothing more than one person's subjective 
opinion, (eg. standard of driving, being in control, behaviour which may or 
may not constitute a public order offence, etc.) a conviction certainly does 
not nor should not follow unless the bench are of the same subjective 
opinion.

I'm sure you're not saying that if a small-minded Pc chose to stretch the 
definition of such an offence to encompass behaviour which is not 
specifically illegal, the bench would have no option but to agree, having so 
often denied it in the past.

-- 
Rob

On 28 Dec, 17:47, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>
> I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in traffic to pull
> out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around the corner on the
> pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my door. He got stroppy and
> phoned his Mum who came round and called the Police to try and have me
> arrested for careless driving! I was advised by the copper that the cyclist
> was in the wrong, but as he didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to
> "ask" his mother to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what
>

Most cyclists have liability insurance - it's a standard part of the
public liability cover on most home contents insurance policies

Toom

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:47:09 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
 wrote:

>On 28 Dec, 17:47, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>>
>> I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in traffic to pull
>> out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around the corner on the
>> pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my door. He got stroppy and
>> phoned his Mum who came round and called the Police to try and have me
>> arrested for careless driving! I was advised by the copper that the cyclist
>> was in the wrong, but as he didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to
>> "ask" his mother to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what
>>
>
>Most cyclists have liability insurance - it's a standard part of the
>public liability cover on most home contents insurance policies

Except it really shouldn't matter whether the liability is covered by
insurance or not.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Toom Tabard  wrote:

> On 28 Dec, 17:47, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> >
> > I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in
> > traffic to pull out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around
> > the corner on the pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my
> > door. He got stroppy and phoned his Mum who came round and called
> > the Police to try and have me arrested for careless driving! I was
> > advised by the copper that the cyclist was in the wrong, but as he
> > didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to "ask" his mother
> > to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what
> >
> 
> Most cyclists have liability insurance - it's a standard part of the
> public liability cover on most home contents insurance policies
> 
What makes you think most people have home insurance?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:14:17 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>
>"Rob"  wrote in message 
>news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Bystander wrote:
>> || "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
>> || 
>> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> ||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
>> ||| eastern european.
>> |||
>> ||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
>> ||| cycling on the road/pavement.
>> |||
>> ||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
>> ||| motorists?
>> |||
>> ||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
>> ||| their license as well as a fine?
>> ||
>> || No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
>> || control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
>> || policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
>> || it, rather than having a quiet word.
>>
>> For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other small-minded 
>> people involved, the policeman would be only one of them.
>>
>> -- 
>> Rob
>>
>
>What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an old lady 
>on the pavement and killed her? 
>

What sort of fucking stupid question is that - whose fault do you
think it was:

a) It was the old lady's ?
b) It was the manufacturer of the cycle?
c )It was the manufacturer of the mobile phone?
d) It was the fault of a knob called "mentalguy2004"

"The Todal"  wrote in message
news:5tkpsmF1d3am2U1@mid.individual.net...

> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes so
> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way
> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>
> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.

I'm an occasional cyclist and I've probably done most of those things at
some time or other, but I do them *safely and with consideration for
pedestrians and other road users*.

It is possible: cycling on the pavement (for many reasons++), you give
priority to pedestrians. Approaching red lights at a pelican crossing *with
no pedestrian in sight*, I might go across (wish I could do that in my car).
Turning left at a red light I might do, paying attention to any pedestrians
crossing on their green light.

Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect on-coming
cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way. And other
cyclists.

I've cycled in Italy, France, etc where they are much more laid back about
these things. In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.

But I agree most other cyclists are totally inconsiderate.

(++ Modern road systems are dangerous for cyclists. Consider a single lane
of traffic which forks left and right. In car there is no problem. A cyclist
wanting to take the right fork *has to cut across a lane of traffic*.
Two lanes of traffic, the right-hand filtering right, a cyclist has to be on
the centre white line to turn right. That is no place to be, the line is
only a nominal, symbolic separator. A giant roundabout with 3 lanes, and I 
want the last exit. Etc. So cyclists use makeshift cycle-lanes,
ie. pavements, for their safety.)

Bart

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:45:43 GMT, "Bart C"  wrote:

> In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
> with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.

Not true - Right Turns on Red are in general not allowed in New York City.

http://www.ny.com/transportation/automobiles/cartips.html

We must just be grateful Bart breaks all the traffic laws *safely and with
consideration for pedestrians and other road users*.  In consideration,
pedal and motor cyclists are outstanding contributors of organ donations.

Tony

"Bart C"  wrote in message 
news:HYtdj.69669$c_1.11625@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "The Todal"  wrote in message
> news:5tkpsmF1d3am2U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes 
>> so
>> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way
>> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>>
>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.
>
> I'm an occasional cyclist and I've probably done most of those things at
> some time or other, but I do them *safely and with consideration for
> pedestrians and other road users*.
>
> It is possible: cycling on the pavement (for many reasons++), you give
> priority to pedestrians. Approaching red lights at a pelican crossing 
> *with
> no pedestrian in sight*, I might go across (wish I could do that in my 
> car).
> Turning left at a red light I might do, paying attention to any 
> pedestrians
> crossing on their green light.
>
> Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect 
> on-coming
> cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
> Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way. And other
> cyclists.
>
> I've cycled in Italy, France, etc where they are much more laid back about
> these things. In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
> with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.

No you can't you have to give way to the peds .  That's actually why right 
turn on red is allowed, in a busy town right turn on green is next to 
impossible because the perpendicular road is full of peds.

tim


.

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5tnbf5F1cfsnbU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Bart C"  wrote in message 
> news:HYtdj.69669$c_1.11625@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "The Todal"  wrote in message
>> news:5tkpsmF1d3am2U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes 
>>> so
>>> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way
>>> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>>>
>>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.
>>
>> I'm an occasional cyclist and I've probably done most of those things at
>> some time or other, but I do them *safely and with consideration for
>> pedestrians and other road users*.
>>
>> It is possible: cycling on the pavement (for many reasons++), you give
>> priority to pedestrians. Approaching red lights at a pelican crossing 
>> *with
>> no pedestrian in sight*, I might go across (wish I could do that in my 
>> car).
>> Turning left at a red light I might do, paying attention to any 
>> pedestrians
>> crossing on their green light.
>>
>> Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect 
>> on-coming
>> cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
>> Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way. And other
>> cyclists.
>>
>> I've cycled in Italy, France, etc where they are much more laid back 
>> about
>> these things. In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
>> with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.
>
> No you can't you have to give way to the peds .  That's actually why right 
> turn on red is allowed, in a busy town right turn on green is next to 
> impossible because the perpendicular road is full of peds.

Perpendicular roads? That's some feat of engineering, let alone driving on 
them!

Bart C wrote:
> "The Todal"  wrote in message
> news:5tkpsmF1d3am2U1@mid.individual.net...
> 

Snip

> I'm an occasional cyclist and I've probably done most of those things at
> some time or other, but I do them *safely and with consideration for
> pedestrians and other road users*.

Snip

> Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect on-coming
> cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
> Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way.

¿Really? Why are they looking the wrong way?


Snip, snip, snip
> 
> But I agree most other cyclists are totally inconsiderate.
> 

Snip

> 
> Bart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bcscn35lupshmdka72lneaq3leaqoanps3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:45:43 GMT, "Bart C"  wrote:
>
>> In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
>> with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.
>
> Not true - Right Turns on Red are in general not allowed in New York City.
>
> http://www.ny.com/transportation/automobiles/cartips.html

Sorry got this bit mixed up. I've driven elsewhere but only cycled/walked in 
NYC; a bit more carefully over there, don't know how strict they are on 
cyclists.

> We must just be grateful Bart breaks all the traffic laws *safely and with
> consideration for pedestrians and other road users*.  In consideration,
> pedal and motor cyclists are outstanding contributors of organ donations.

Not all the laws :-) Don't really make a habit of it either, but must have 
done so sometime in 40-odd years of cycling. I'm just not aggressive like a 
lot of cyclists seem to be now.

While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for queues of 
traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on red, with 
no pedestrian in sight?

Bart

"®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
news:wxvdj.57280$036.54157@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Bart C wrote:

>> Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect 
>> on-coming
>> cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
>> Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way.
>
> ¿Really? Why are they looking the wrong way?

Because they might be looking only to their left for example, not realising 
there might be some traffic coming from their right that has ignored the 
one-way signs.

Although, as a cyclist you have to watch out for pretty much everything 
anyway, walkers stepping into the road (because they can't hear you), cars 
opening their doors, dogs lunging at you forcing you to swerve into the path 
of a lorry...

Bart

Bart C wrote:
> 
> While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for queues of 
> traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on red, with 
> no pedestrian in sight?

Unlike many cyclists most drivers are not prepared to cross a red light 
and "you must stop when the red light shows".


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
news:sevdj.57275$036.38006@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5tnbf5F1cfsnbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Bart C"  wrote in message 
>> news:HYtdj.69669$c_1.11625@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "The Todal"  wrote in message
>>> news:5tkpsmF1d3am2U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Could it perhaps be the use of mobile phones or MP3 players that causes 
>>>> so
>>>> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong 
>>>> way
>>>> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.
>>>
>>> I'm an occasional cyclist and I've probably done most of those things at
>>> some time or other, but I do them *safely and with consideration for
>>> pedestrians and other road users*.
>>>
>>> It is possible: cycling on the pavement (for many reasons++), you give
>>> priority to pedestrians. Approaching red lights at a pelican crossing 
>>> *with
>>> no pedestrian in sight*, I might go across (wish I could do that in my 
>>> car).
>>> Turning left at a red light I might do, paying attention to any 
>>> pedestrians
>>> crossing on their green light.
>>>
>>> Driving wrong way down one-way street: it shouldn't really affect 
>>> on-coming
>>> cars, they have to pass you it doesn't matter which way you're pointing.
>>> Just watch for crossing pedestrians looking the wrong way. And other
>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> I've cycled in Italy, France, etc where they are much more laid back 
>>> about
>>> these things. In NYC you can turn right (our left) at a red light, even
>>> with pedestrians crossing, legally even in a car.
>>
>> No you can't you have to give way to the peds .  That's actually why 
>> right turn on red is allowed, in a busy town right turn on green is next 
>> to impossible because the perpendicular road is full of peds.
>
> Perpendicular roads? That's some feat of engineering, let alone driving on 
> them!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perpendicular+&x=24&y=17

read the second meaning, not the first.

tim

On 29 Dec, 18:03, "Bart C"  wrote:

>
> While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for queues of
> traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on red, with
> no pedestrian in sight?
>

Same as with any red light - allowng individuals to use their
discretion and good judgement only works if you can guarantee they
have reasonable powers of discretion and good judgement. Empirical
observation suggests you can't guarantee that with many people.

Toom

On 29 Dec, 11:24, IanAl  wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:47:09 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
>
>  wrote:
> >On 28 Dec, 17:47, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>
> >> I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in traffic to pull
> >> out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around the corner on the
> >> pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my door. He got stroppy and
> >> phoned his Mum who came round and called the Police to try and have me
> >> arrested for careless driving! I was advised by the copper that the cyclist
> >> was in the wrong, but as he didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to
> >> "ask" his mother to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what
>
> >Most cyclists have liability insurance - it's a standard part of the
> >public liability cover on most home contents insurance policies
>
> Except it really shouldn't matter whether the liability is covered by
> insurance or not.

Indeed, but in practice the person you are claiming against may
themselves have no clue about issues of legal laibility for negligence
and may have no ready cash.

Toom

On 29 Dec, 14:17, alang  wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:47:09 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>
>
> Toom Tabard  wrote:
> > On 28 Dec, 17:47, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
>
> > > I was half-pulled out of my drive once, waiting for a gap in
> > > traffic to pull out. A (14-15 year old) cyclist came flying around
> > > the corner on the pavement, hit my car and left a huge dent in my
> > > door. He got stroppy and phoned his Mum who came round and called
> > > the Police to try and have me arrested for careless driving! I was
> > > advised by the copper that the cyclist was in the wrong, but as he
> > > didn't have insurance (!), my only option was to "ask" his mother
> > > to recompense me for the damage. I needn't tell you what
>
> > Most cyclists have liability insurance - it's a standard part of the
> > public liability cover on most home contents insurance policies
>
> What makes you think most people have home insurance?
>
What makes you think they don't?

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:10:56 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
 wrote:

> On 29 Dec, 18:03, "Bart C"  wrote:
>
>>
>> While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for queues of
>> traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on red, with
>> no pedestrian in sight?
>>
>
> Same as with any red light - allowng individuals to use their
> discretion and good judgement only works if you can guarantee they
> have reasonable powers of discretion and good judgement. Empirical
> observation suggests you can't guarantee that with many people.

Making a left turn on red would have very much the same rules as making a
left turn at a mini-roundabout.  I hope licence holders have whatever
reasonable powers of discretion and good judgment are needed to perform
that common manoeuvre.

Tony

In message , Anthony R. Gold 
 writes
>On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:10:56 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
> wrote:
>
>> On 29 Dec, 18:03, "Bart C"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for queues of
>>> traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on red, with
>>> no pedestrian in sight?
>>>
>>
>> Same as with any red light - allowng individuals to use their
>> discretion and good judgement only works if you can guarantee they
>> have reasonable powers of discretion and good judgement. Empirical
>> observation suggests you can't guarantee that with many people.
>
>Making a left turn on red would have very much the same rules as making a
>left turn at a mini-roundabout.  I hope licence holders have whatever
>reasonable powers of discretion and good judgment are needed to perform
>that common manoeuvre.
>
>Tony

In the USA, 'turning right on the red' (when permitted) is a very 
sensible way of keeping traffic flowing. It is therefore surprising that 
they have never really caught onto the idea of roundabouts (undoubtedly 
the best thing since sliced bread). However, they do have some traffic 
lights where (on occasions) all flash amber in unison. In these 
circumstances, it appears that the driver who gets to the lights first 
(or thinks he/she did) has priority.

As for traffic waiting at pedestrian crossings when there no pedestrians 
waiting to cross, this could be avoided by doing away with the red 
lights for the traffic. The traffic would have only green (= normal 
priority) and flashing amber (= treat as a zebra crossing where the 
pedestrian has absolute priority). The pedestrians would have only red 
(= do not cross) and flashing amber (= treat as a zebra crossing where 
the pedestrian has absolute priority).
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message , Anthony R. Gold 
>  writes
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:10:56 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Dec, 18:03, "Bart C"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While we're here, can someone please explain the rationale for 
>>>> queues of
>>>> traffic waiting pointlessly at a pelican crossing with lights on 
>>>> red, with
>>>> no pedestrian in sight?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Same as with any red light - allowng individuals to use their
>>> discretion and good judgement only works if you can guarantee they
>>> have reasonable powers of discretion and good judgement. Empirical
>>> observation suggests you can't guarantee that with many people.
>>
>> Making a left turn on red would have very much the same rules as making a
>> left turn at a mini-roundabout.  I hope licence holders have whatever
>> reasonable powers of discretion and good judgment are needed to perform
>> that common manoeuvre.
>>
>> Tony
> 
> In the USA, 'turning right on the red' (when permitted) is a very 
> sensible way of keeping traffic flowing. It is therefore surprising that 
> they have never really caught onto the idea of roundabouts (undoubtedly 
> the best thing since sliced bread). However, they do have some traffic 
> lights where (on occasions) all flash amber in unison. In these 
> circumstances, it appears that the driver who gets to the lights first 
> (or thinks he/she did) has priority.

Like roundabouts in the UK...
> 
> As for traffic waiting at pedestrian crossings when there no pedestrians 
> waiting to cross, this could be avoided by doing away with the red 
> lights for the traffic. The traffic would have only green (= normal 
> priority) and flashing amber (= treat as a zebra crossing where the 
> pedestrian has absolute priority). The pedestrians would have only red 
> (= do not cross) and flashing amber (= treat as a zebra crossing where 
> the pedestrian has absolute priority).


-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

In message <4vOdj.58381$036.38398@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, ®i©ardo 
 writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:

<big snip>

>>  In the USA, 'turning right on the red' (when permitted) is a very 
>>sensible way of keeping traffic flowing. It is therefore surprising 
>>that they have never really caught onto the idea of roundabouts 
>>(undoubtedly  the best thing since sliced bread). However, they do 
>>have some traffic  lights where (on occasions) all flash amber in 
>>unison. In these  circumstances, it appears that the driver who gets 
>>to the lights first  (or thinks he/she did) has priority.
>
>Like roundabouts in the UK...

Not quite. There doesn't seem to be a 'Priority to the Left' rule. In 
the UK, when the traffic lights have failed at a crossroads, we are 
indeed supposed to adopt 'Priority to the Right', and treat the junction 
as a mini-roundabout.  In the USA, when all lights are flashing amber 
(which is a 'normal' situation), it's 'first come, first to cross'. This 
can result in much emergency braking and the occasional shunt, 
especially if the other driver came a close second, but is in a larger 
vehicle!
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <4vOdj.58381$036.38398@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, ®i©ardo 
>  writes
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> <big snip>
> 
>>>  In the USA, 'turning right on the red' (when permitted) is a very 
>>> sensible way of keeping traffic flowing. It is therefore surprising 
>>> that they have never really caught onto the idea of roundabouts 
>>> (undoubtedly  the best thing since sliced bread). However, they do 
>>> have some traffic  lights where (on occasions) all flash amber in 
>>> unison. In these  circumstances, it appears that the driver who gets 
>>> to the lights first  (or thinks he/she did) has priority.
>>
>> Like roundabouts in the UK...
> 
> Not quite. There doesn't seem to be a 'Priority to the Left' rule. In 
> the UK, when the traffic lights have failed at a crossroads, we are 
> indeed supposed to adopt 'Priority to the Right', and treat the junction 
> as a mini-roundabout.  In the USA, when all lights are flashing amber 
> (which is a 'normal' situation), it's 'first come, first to cross'. This 
> can result in much emergency braking and the occasional shunt, 
> especially if the other driver came a close second, but is in a larger 
> vehicle!

So when does the "priority to the right" rule come into play on a UK 
roundabout, mini or otherwise? Bear in mind that all access roads to the 
roundabout will have hatched lines at their access point to it.

Say I'm approaching the roundabout and am at those hatched lines, and to 
my right there is a vehicle three or four feet away from them. What next?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On 30 Dec, 16:43, ®i©ardo  wrote:
>
> So when does the "priority to the right" rule come into play on a UK
> roundabout, mini or otherwise? Bear in mind that all access roads to the
> roundabout will have hatched lines at their access point to it.
>
> Say I'm approaching the roundabout and am at those hatched lines, and to
> my right there is a vehicle three or four feet away from them. What next?
>
It doesn't 'come into play', it's the basic rule at all times if there
are no traffic lights or other signs - 'give priority to traffic
approaching from your right'. If there is enough space for you to
proceed without causing hazard to the traffic from your right, then
you do so. If it's a small roundabout, or there is an entrance a short
distance to your right, then if someone is approaching the hatched
lines, you should assume they'll be checking to their right, so, if
you don't have have enough time and space, given their distance and
speed, give them priority.

Toom

In message <oUPdj.123664$cJ3.90751@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, ®i©ardo 
 writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <4vOdj.58381$036.38398@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, ®i©ardo 
>> writes
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>  <big snip>
>>
>>>>  In the USA, 'turning right on the red' (when permitted) is a very 
>>>>sensible way of keeping traffic flowing. It is therefore surprising 
>>>>that they have never really caught onto the idea of roundabouts 
>>>>(undoubtedly  the best thing since sliced bread). However, they do 
>>>>have some traffic  lights where (on occasions) all flash amber in 
>>>>unison. In these  circumstances, it appears that the driver who gets 
>>>>to the lights first  (or thinks he/she did) has priority.
>>>
>>> Like roundabouts in the UK...
>>  Not quite. There doesn't seem to be a 'Priority to the Left' rule. 
>>In  the UK, when the traffic lights have failed at a crossroads, we 
>>are  indeed supposed to adopt 'Priority to the Right', and treat the 
>>junction  as a mini-roundabout.  In the USA, when all lights are 
>>flashing amber (which is a 'normal' situation), it's 'first come, 
>>first to cross'. This  can result in much emergency braking and the 
>>occasional shunt, especially if the other driver came a close second, 
>>but is in a larger vehicle!
>
>So when does the "priority to the right" rule come into play on a UK 
>roundabout, mini or otherwise? Bear in mind that all access roads to 
>the roundabout will have hatched lines at their access point to it.
>
>Say I'm approaching the roundabout and am at those hatched lines, and 
>to my right there is a vehicle three or four feet away from them. What 
>next?
>

It really depends on the size of the roundabout. Knowing that, if there 
was a collision, it would essentially be your fault, I expect that you 
would make an instant decision as to whether to give way to the other 
vehicle, or to accelerate smartly. It's something we both probably do 
daily. It's not quite as clear cut at the crossroads in the USA.
-- 
Ian

"Aosmosis"  wrote in message 
news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> eastern european.
>
> I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> cycling on the road/pavement.
>
> Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> motorists?
>
> Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on their
> license as well as a fine?
>
> thanks

It applies to motor cycists.  OTOH my phone will auto answer when a headset 
is plugged in and so could be legally used to receive calls even on a 
[motor] bike.

micky  wrote in
news:o4mcn31oje0r5u9782sk73i1lablb56bjq@4ax.com: 

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:14:17 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Rob"  wrote in message 
>>news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Bystander wrote:
>>> || "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
>>> || 
>>> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.co
>>> m... 
>>> ||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
>>> ||| eastern european.
>>> |||
>>> ||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
>>> ||| cycling on the road/pavement.
>>> |||
>>> ||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
>>> ||| motorists?
>>> |||
>>> ||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
>>> ||| their license as well as a fine?
>>> ||
>>> || No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
>>> || control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
>>> || policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
>>> || it, rather than having a quiet word.
>>>
>>> For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other
>>> small-minded people involved, the policeman would be only one of
>>> them. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Rob
>>>
>>
>>What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an old
>>lady on the pavement and killed her? 
>>
> 
> What sort of fucking stupid question is that - whose fault do you
> think it was:
> 
> a) It was the old lady's ?
> b) It was the manufacturer of the cycle?
> c )It was the manufacturer of the mobile phone?
> d) It was the fault of a knob called "mentalguy2004"
> 
> 

The cyclist is at fault. The cyclist broke the law, and it is resonable 
to assume with the knowledge that breaking the law might result in the 
death or injury of another. The killing would be no accident.

-- 
gbh
gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:34:57 -0000, "Rob"
 wrote:

>FWIW I don't think people *should* be allowed to use mobile phones whilst 
>cycling.

How about walking?  Distracted pedestrian steps into road without
looking, causing petrol tanker to swerve into bus full of
schollchildren ...

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:34:57 -0000, "Rob"
>  wrote:
> 
>> FWIW I don't think people *should* be allowed to use mobile phones whilst 
>> cycling.
> 
> How about walking?  Distracted pedestrian steps into road without
> looking, 

Many pedestrians do not need a mobile phone to do that.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Dec 28 2007, 5:25 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Rob"  wrote in message
>
> news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bystander wrote:
> > || "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
> > ||
> >news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...> > ||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> > ||| eastern european.
> > |||
> > ||| I have seen them on numerous occasions usingmobilephones while
> > ||| cycling on the road/pavement.
> > |||
> > ||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> > ||| motorists?
> > |||
> > ||| Say if acyclisthad a driving license can they get 3 points on
> > ||| their license as well as a fine?
> > ||
> > || No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
> > || control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
> > || policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
> > || it, rather than having a quiet word.
>
> > For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other small-minded
> > people involved, the policeman would be only one of them.
>
> Could it perhaps be the use ofmobilephones or MP3 players that causes so
> many cyclists to drive at full pelt through red lights, or the wrong way
> down a one-way street, or in contravention of a "no right turn" sign?
>
> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.-

Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
dangerous actions.

wrote in message 
news:adc43695-bcdf-4704-8e44-7940c2e79199@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28 2007, 5:25 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Rob"  wrote in message
>
> news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.-

Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
dangerous actions.

OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get done 
every year and the other 2% are lying.

One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], but 
this is frequent with cyclists - if they come up to lights and they happen 
to be red, they just ride through anyway and dodge the traffic or start 
riding on the pavement or pedestrian crossings.

Near me they made a segregated cycle lane alongside a busy road near the 
park.  When very few used this they made a cycle lane in the road.  What did 
the cyclists do?  Continued riding on the pavement!

Car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, 
caravanners, taxi drivers - they all have their vices (and virtues), but by 
far the most persistently and frequently deliquent road users are cyclists.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:47:00 +0000, R. Mark Clayton wrote
(in article ):


> Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
> laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
> while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
> should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
> stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
> punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
> dangerous actions.
> 
> OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get done 
> every year and the other 2% are lying.
> 
> One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], but 
> this is frequent with cyclists - if they come up to lights and they happen 
> to be red, they just ride through anyway and dodge the traffic or start 
> riding on the pavement or pedestrian crossings.
> 
> Near me they made a segregated cycle lane alongside a busy road near the 
> park.  When very few used this they made a cycle lane in the road.  What did 
> the cyclists do?  Continued riding on the pavement!
> 
> Car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, 
> caravanners, taxi drivers - they all have their vices (and virtues), but by 
> far the most persistently and frequently deliquent road users are cyclists. 
> 
> 

The council around here spent lots of my money making cycle lanes but the 
bastards, sorry, cyclists, continue to use the road. This is a section of 
road downhill with double whites so the biker can exceed the speed at which 
you can legally overtake but it's a big hill and still a painful experience 
to be behind one. Especially when you're looking at the cycle lane to the 
left which you've paid for and the fucker won't use it.


-- 
remove stars for email
g*a*r*y*c*o*w*e*l*l*a*t*m*a*c*d*o*t*c*o*m
Stargazing blog at
<http://tinyurl.com/398eom>

On Jan 12, 5:57 pm, Gary  wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:47:00 퍍, R. Mark Clayton wrote
> (in article ):
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
> > laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
> > while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
> > should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
> > stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
> > punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
> > dangerous actions.
>
> > OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get done
> > every year and the other 2% are lying.
>
> > One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], but
> > this is frequent with cyclists - if they come up to lights and they happen
> > to be red, they just ride through anyway and dodge the traffic or start
> > riding on the pavement or pedestrian crossings.
>
> > Near me they made a segregated cycle lane alongside a busy road near the> > park.  When very few used this they made a cycle lane in the road.  What did
> > the cyclists do?  Continued riding on the pavement!
>
> > Car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians,
> > caravanners, taxi drivers - they all have their vices (and virtues), but by
> > far the most persistently and frequently deliquent road users are cyclists.
>
> The council around here spent lots of my money making cycle lanes but the
> bastards, sorry, cyclists, continue to use the road. This is a section of
> road downhill with double whites so the biker can exceed the speed at which
> you can legally overtake but it's a big hill and still a painful experience
> to be behind one. Especially when you're looking at the cycle lane to the
> left which you've paid for and the censored won't use it.

As a car driver you must know that it is legal for cycle to use the
road, Sec 147 of the Highway code also says that you should be careful
and considerate towards other raod users. However much money councils
spend on cycle lanes and paths, most of them are not suitable for
cycling, especially not for cycling at reasonable speed. I assume you
also know that cars should not drive on mandatory cycle lane and
should stop correctly at advance stop lines.

On Jan 12, 2:47 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:adc43695-bcdf-4704-8e44-7940c2e79199@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28 2007, 5:25 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> > "Rob"  wrote in message
>
> >news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.-
>
> Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
> laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
> while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
> should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
> stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
> punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
> dangerous actions.
>
> OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get done
> every year and the other 2% are lying.
>
> One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], but> this is frequent with cyclists -

Well, I can see one every few minutes from my living room. It also a
rare day that I don't see a motor vehicle running a red light on my
way to and from work.

Car drivers, even taxi drivers, ignore no entry signs and drive the
wrong way on one way streets around here. In the three years I have
lived here, I have seen two accidents caused by such people, and there
may have been others I missed. So don't preach to me about motorists
being better than cyclists.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>  wrote in message 
> news:adc43695-bcdf-4704-8e44-7940c2e79199@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28 2007, 5:25 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> "Rob"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.-
> 
> Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
> laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
> while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
> should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
> stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
> punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
> dangerous actions.
> 
> OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get done 
> every year and the other 2% are lying.
> 
> One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], but 
> this is frequent with cyclists - if they come up to lights and they happen 
> to be red, they just ride through anyway and dodge the traffic or start 
> riding on the pavement or pedestrian crossings.
> 
> Near me they made a segregated cycle lane alongside a busy road near the 
> park.  When very few used this they made a cycle lane in the road.  What did 
> the cyclists do?  Continued riding on the pavement!
> 
> Car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, 
> caravanners, taxi drivers - they all have their vices (and virtues), but by 
> far the most persistently and frequently deliquent road users are cyclists. 
> 

Curious you say 98% of motorists speed and yet accuse cyclists of being 
the most frequently and persistently delinquent?

While a number of cyclists do break traffic laws it is no where near the 
number of motorists who speed.



>

Did you the Recent Program on the TV showing cyclists jumping red Lights & 
Running School Children over ?

Regards
Skinty

"Nick"  wrote in message 
news:478b2e67$0$13940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:adc43695-bcdf-4704-8e44-7940c2e79199@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 28 2007, 5:25 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>> "Rob"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> I'd like to see more cyclists stopped and fined.-
>>
>> Why is it that car drivers are outraged by cyclists ignoring certain
>> laws, but they feel it is OK to exceed the speed limit, use mobiles
>> while driving, run through red lights, block box junctions, etc? You
>> should go out on a bike and see how drivers treat cycle lanes, advance
>> stop lines, how much room they give you when passing. I am all for
>> punishing dangerous cyclists, but car drivers commit a lot more
>> dangerous actions.
>>
>> OK so 98% of motorists speed (especially motorcycles), but millions get 
>> done every year and the other 2% are lying.
>>
>> One rarely sees cars blatantly driving through red lights [in the UK], 
>> but this is frequent with cyclists - if they come up to lights and they 
>> happen to be red, they just ride through anyway and dodge the traffic or 
>> start riding on the pavement or pedestrian crossings.
>>
>> Near me they made a segregated cycle lane alongside a busy road near the 
>> park.  When very few used this they made a cycle lane in the road.  What 
>> did the cyclists do?  Continued riding on the pavement!
>>
>> Car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, 
>> caravanners, taxi drivers - they all have their vices (and virtues), but 
>> by far the most persistently and frequently deliquent road users are 
>> cyclists.
>
> Curious you say 98% of motorists speed and yet accuse cyclists of being 
> the most frequently and persistently delinquent?
>
> While a number of cyclists do break traffic laws it is no where near the 
> number of motorists who speed.
>
>
>
>>

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:De-dnXrWnJEjrujanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
> mentalguy2004 wrote:
> || "Rob"  wrote in message
> || news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> ||| Bystander wrote:
> ||||| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
> |||||
> ||| 
> news:91e81bc2-a8d6-4c27-a96f-d3013cc0e1f8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> |||||| Living in the Fenlands there are a lot of cyclists, fair number
> |||||| eastern european.
> ||||||
> |||||| I have seen them on numerous occasions using mobile phones while
> |||||| cycling on the road/pavement.
> ||||||
> |||||| Does anyone know how the law applies to cyclists rather than
> |||||| motorists?
> ||||||
> |||||| Say if a cyclist had a driving license can they get 3 points on
> |||||| their license as well as a fine?
> |||||
> ||||| No. There is almost certainly some law about not having proper
> ||||| control of a bike, but it would result in a small fine if any
> ||||| policeman was small-minded enoug to want to make a 'detection' of
> ||||| it, rather than having a quiet word.
> |||
> ||| For it to result in a fine, there would need to be other
> ||| small-minded people involved, the policeman would be only one of
> ||| them.
> |||
> ||| --
> ||| Rob
> |||
> ||
> || What if the cyclist was distracted by his phone, and mowed down an
> || old lady on the pavement and killed her?
>
> I dunno, what if someone dropped a lit fag-end which was blown by the wind 
> into the window of a firework factory, causing a huge explosion resulting 
> in loss of life. In either case someone will decide whether it was an 
> unfortunate accident or something worse, eg. manslaughter.
>

Colliding with [less agile] pedestrians* is a very likely and foreseeable 
consequence of riding on the pavement while talking on a hand held phone 
(auto answer ones with headsets (like mine) would be legal on a motor-bike), 
whereas unless you are a worker in the firework factory having a fag break 
on a windy day the other scenaria is not.

> FWIW I don't think people *should* be allowed to use mobile phones whilst 
> cycling.
I don't think they should be allowed to use hand held ones.
>
> -- 
> Rob
>

* I have been hit two or three times by pavement cyclists, but perhaps I 
chose not to jump out of their way.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Rob"  wrote in message 
> news:De-dnXrWnJEjrujanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
>> mentalguy2004 wrote:
>> || "Rob"  wrote in message
>> || news:pN6dnecz3foCsejanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>> ||| Bystander wrote:
>> ||||| "Aosmosis"  wrote in message
>> |||||
>> ||| 

> ...whereas unless you are a worker in the firework factory having a fag break 
> on a windy day... 
> 

Just love it!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

skinty wrote:
> Did you the Recent Program on the TV showing cyclists jumping red Lights & 
> Running School Children over ?
> 

No I didn't see it. Yes some cyclist do cycle through red traffic light 
and the do sometimes cause injury.

However it was claimed over 98% of motorists speed I do not believe 98% 
of cyclist jump red lights.

So the claim that cyclist are the most frequently and persistently 
delinquent seems bizarre.

Do you understand this argument?

the more earnest that they also might share in the
great blessings that others had obtained.

This remarkable pouring out in the Spirit of God, which thus extended
from one end to the other of this county, was not confined to it, but
many places in Connecticut have partaken in the same mercy. For
instance, the first parish in Windsor, under the pastoral care of the
Rev. Mr. Marsh, was thus blest about the same time as we in Northampton,
while we had no knowledge of each other's circumstances. There has been
a very great ingathering of souls to Christ in that place, and something
considerable of the same work began afterwards in East Windsor, my
honored father's parish, which has in times past been a place favored
with mercies of this nature, above any on this western side of New
England, excepting Northampton; there having been four or five seasons
of the pouring out of the Spirit to the general awakening of the people
there, since my father's settlement amongst them.

There was also the last spring and summer a wonderful work of God
carried on at Coventry, under the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Meacham. I
had opportunity to converse with some Coventry people, who gave me a
very remarkable account of the surprising change that appeared in the
most rude and vicious persons there. The like was also very great at the
same time in a part of Lebanon, called the Crank, where the Rev. Mr.
Wheelock, a young gentleman, is lately settled: and there has been much
of the same at Durham, under the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Chauncey; and
to appearance no small ingathering of souls there. Likewise amongst many
of the young people in the first precinct in Stratf

been told to the Jews, as well as to Christians, that they should not
always believe the prophets; but yet the Pharisees and Scribes are greatly
concerned about His miracles and try to show that they are false, or wrought
by the devil. For they must needs be convinced, if they acknowledge that
they are of God.

At the present day we are not troubled to make this distinction. Still it is
very easy to do: those who deny neither God nor Jesus Christ do no miracles
which are not certain. Nemo facit virtutem in nomine meo, et cito possit de
me male loqui.191

But we have not to draw this distinction. Here is a sacred relic. Here is a
thorn from the crown of the Saviour of the world, over whom the prince of
this world has no power, which works miracles by the peculiar power of the
blood shed for us. Now God Himself chooses this house in order to display
conspicuously therein His power.

These are not men who do miracles by an unknown and doubtful virtue, which
makes a decision difficult for us. It is God Himself. It is the instrument
of the Passion of His only Son, who, being in many places, chooses this, and
makes men come from all quarters there to receive these miraculous
alleviations in their weaknesses.

840. The Church has three kinds of enemies: the Jews, who have never been of
her body; the heretics, who have withdrawn from it; and the evil Christians,
who rend her from within.

These three kinds of different adversaries usually attack her in different
ways. But here they attack her in one and the same way. As they are all
without miracles, and as the Church has always had miracles against them,
they have all had the same interest in evading them; and they all make use
of this excuse, that doctrine must not be judged by miracles, but miracles
by doctrine. There were two parties among those

shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one
sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the
Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men
that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither
shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all
flesh." 


It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness
and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all
eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When
you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration
before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul;
and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end,
any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must
wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and
conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you
have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this
manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that
your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the
state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say
about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is
inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's
anger?" How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in
the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the
dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born
again, how

are fundamental. Now the rule which is given to us must be
such that it does not destroy the proof which the true miracles give of the
truth, which is the chief end of the miracles.

Moses has given two rules: that the prediction does not come to pass (Deut.
18.), and that they do not lead to idolatry (Deut. 13.); and Jesus Christ
one.

If doctrine regulates miracles, miracles are useless for doctrine.

If miracles regulate...

Objection to the rule.--The distinction of the times. One rule during the
time of Moses, another at present.

804. Miracle.--It is an effect, which exceeds the natural power of the means
which are employed for it; and what is not a miracle is an effect, which
does not exceed the natural power of the means which are employed for it.
Thus, those who heal by invocation of the devil do not work a miracle; for
that does not exceed the natural power of the devil. But...

805. The two fundamentals; one inward, the other outward; grace and
miracles; both supernatural.

806. Miracles and truth are necessary, because it is necessary to convince
the entire man, in body and soul.

807. In all times, either men have spo

ignorant of their virtues, and the outcast of the
greatness of their sins: "Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, thirsty"? etc.

516. Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by
faith. Then faith is not within our power like the deeds of the law, and it
is given to us in another way.

517. Comfort yourselves. It is not from yourselves that you should expect
grace; but, on the contrary, it is in expecting nothing from yourselves that
you must hope for it.

518. Every condition, and even the martyrs, have to fear, according to
Scripture. The greatest pain of purgatory is the uncertainty of the
judgement. Deus absconditus.86

519. John 8. Multi crediderunt in eum. Dicebat ergo Jesus: "Si manseritis...
VERE mei discipuli eritis, et VERITAS LIBERABIT VOS." Responderunt: "Semen
Abrahae sumus, et nemini servimus unquam."[87]

There is a great difference between disciples and true disciples. We
recognise them by telling them that the truth will make them free; for if
they answer that they are free and that it is in their power to come out of
slavery to the devil, they are indeed disciples, but not true disciples.

520. The law has not destroyed nature, but has instructed it; grace has not
destroyed the law, but has made it act. Faith received at baptism is the
source of the whole life of C

®i©ardo wrote:
> creatures."
> 
> Therefore all that incites us to attach ourselves to the creatures is bad;
> since it prevents us from serving God if we know Him, or from seeking Him if
> we know Him not. Now we are full of lust. Therefore we are full of evil;
> therefore we ought to hate ourselves and all that excited us to attach
> ourselves to any other object than God only.
> 
> 480. To make the members happy, they must have one will and submit it to the
> body.
> 
> 481. The examples of the noble deaths of the Lacedaemonians and others
> scarce touch us. For what good is it to us? But the example of the death of
> the martyrs touches us; for they are "our members." We have a common tie
> with them. Their resolution can form ours, not only by example, but because
> it has perhaps deserved ours. There is nothing of this in the examples of
> the heathen. We have no tie with them; as we do not become rich by seeing a
> stranger who is so, but in fact by seeing a father or a husband who is so.
> 
> 482. Morality.--God having made the heavens and the earth, which do not feel
> the happiness of their being, He has willed to make beings who should know
> it, and who should compose a body of thinking members. For our members do
> not feel the happiness of their union, of their wonderful intelligence, of
> the care which has been taken to infuse into them minds, and to make them
> grow and endure. How happy they would be if they saw and felt it! But for
> this they would need to have intelligence to know it, and good-will to
> consent to that of the universal soul. But if, having received intelligence,
> they employed it to retain nourishment for themselves without allowing it to
> pass to the other members, they would be not only unjust, but a
> 
> 

Strange that, no mention of the fact in the message source information 
for this posting that I use Thunderbird, and there's no signature. It 
also shows "X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com", rather than, correctly, 
"X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com".

You've been rumbled!

®i©ardo

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:10:29 +0000, Nick  wrote:

>skinty wrote:
>> Did you the Recent Program on the TV showing cyclists jumping red Lights & 
>> Running School Children over ?
>> 
>
>No I didn't see it. Yes some cyclist do cycle through red traffic light 
>and the do sometimes cause injury.
>
>However it was claimed over 98% of motorists speed I do not believe 98% 
>of cyclist jump red lights.
>
>So the claim that cyclist are the most frequently and persistently 
>delinquent seems bizarre.
>
>Do you understand this argument?

Yes, it's similar to the argument that far more people litter than the
people who murder, therefore we should be more concerned about
litterers than murderers.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:10:29 +0000, Nick  wrote:
> 
>> skinty wrote:
>>> Did you the Recent Program on the TV showing cyclists jumping red Lights & 
>>> Running School Children over ?
>>>
>> No I didn't see it. Yes some cyclist do cycle through red traffic light 
>> and the do sometimes cause injury.
>>
>> However it was claimed over 98% of motorists speed I do not believe 98% 
>> of cyclist jump red lights.
>>
>> So the claim that cyclist are the most frequently and persistently 
>> delinquent seems bizarre.
>>
>> Do you understand this argument?
> 
> Yes, it's similar to the argument that far more people litter than the
> people who murder, therefore we should be more concerned about
> litterers than murderers.
> 
Obviously a little logic is beyond your comprehension. I made no 
argument about what we should be concerned with.

The claim was that cyclists are more persistently delinquent than 
motorists. It just isn't true.

You may not regard it as not significant if a motorist drives at 31 mph 
in a 30 mph zone but this is a breach of the law just as riding through 
red traffic lights is a breach of the law.

If you want to talk about the significance of breaking each law, or what 
we should do about law breaking we can but it is a different argument.