[Gllug] Cyclists (off topic)

Tue Aug 12 14:49:52 UTC 2003

<fx: checks for asbestos pants>

Mark Lowes <hamster at korenwolf.net> writes:

> On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:40, Stephen Harker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 10:14, Mark Lowes wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:02, Xander D Harkness wrote:
> > > > coming back to my email where I suggested that pedestrians have a
> > > > identification plate attached to their back.  This might be a better
> > >
> > > How would this idea help a friend of my who was knocked over[1] by a
> > > cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street.  Naturally the prat
> > > didn't stop to see if she was ok and continued on his merry way.
> > 
> > WRONG!
> >
> > The reason why the guy didn't stop to see if she was OK was because he was a 
> > prat as you said not because he was a cyclist. He could just as easily have 
> > knocked into her whilst running on foot and not stopped.
> 
> Agreed, however it continues to highlight the fact that there are a
> non-trivial number of cyclists[1] (and I'll actually include motor
> cyclists in this) who believe that the road rules do not apply and that
> "no entry" and "one way" signs are for motorists and that red lights are
> something to be avoided.
> 
> However I can bet that the same people who have claimed that jumping a
> redlight on a bike is ok will scream blue bloody murder if they saw a
> motorist doing the same.

>From personal experience, on somewhere like Holloway Road I have to get
from the left side to the right side to take Seven Sisters. In normal
traffic, the best algorithm involves waiting for a red light, sidling
across the front of the traffic, and then pedalling away before the red
light turns green again (but after the traffic from the other side has
stopped) because *THATS* *THE* *ONLY* *WAY* *I* *CAN* *FEEL* *THE*
*DRIVERS* *SAW* *ME*. 

If I try to move from left to right in the flow of traffic - well, let's
just say I've been doing this route for 10 years, and I'm still alive,
so that probably isn't the way I do it.

Personally, I'm quite happy for people to do an obviously safe
thing. For cyclists, starting before the motorists is a safe
thing. Going through a red light with cross-traffic is stupid who-so-ever
you are.

There are stretches of road where I have run off the road onto the
pavement at speed. Strangely, I *wasn't* doing this to cut a few seconds
off my journey time - I was doing it to stay alive.

> > > Cyclists (like their motorised friends who jump
> > > red lights and ignore signs) are inconsiderate morons who should be
> > > removed from the road as quickly as possible.
> > 
> > NO! NO! NO!
> > 
> > Inconsiderate morons are inconsiderate morons. Some ride bikes, some drive 
> > cars and some populate mailing lists but it doesn't follow that all cyclists, 
> > motorists or whatever are inconsideerate morons just because some behave that 

But it's the level of acceptable danger to those around them. A
dangerous cyclist might break a limb on someone else. A dangerous car
driver can kill a few dozen with a well-timed error. A dangerous petrol
tanker driver ... or, for that matter, a dangerous plane driver!

> I think you've misinterpreted me as wanting all cyclists removed from
> the road, this is false.  However getting the morons off the road who
> think that the rules don't apply to them would reduce the number of
> accidents by far more than any other approach.

I had a quick look at the accident statistics. (Poke around
www.statistics.gov.uk - *very* educational). People are not killed by
cyclists. People are killed by cars, vans and lorries. Cyclists are
killed by everything except pedestrians. Motorcyclists are occasionally
killed by pedestrians (swerve to avoid pedestrian walking into road,
lose control, die horribly, traumatise everyone waiting to cross).

Mind you, I agree that reducing the incidence of idiocy would reduce
accidents - but I think you want to multiply idiocy by a weighting
factor, like *percentage chance of death or serious injury following
impact by this vehicle type* to get a reasonable estimate.

> > way. Honestly are you just trolling or what?
> 
> No I'm annoyed by the attitude some on the list are giving that the road
> rules don't apply to them as cyclists.  As someone who takes _great_
> care to give cyclists the room they need and not to crowd them it's a
> right royal pisser to see a group of them crapping on the rest of us.

Thanks for that - it's always nice to hear a motorist who *does* -
sometimes you could find yourself believing quite the opposite...

> The roads are a shared medium, there are rules and guidelines out there
> to try and limit the harm each group can do to the other.  Much like the
> net, it's also a shared medium with a group of morons who think that the
> rules and guidelines on how not to piss people off don't apply to them.

Hey - not all cyclists are spammers. And not all spammers own
bicycles...

cheers, Rich.

> 
>    Mark
> 
> [1] Motorists are as bad in many ways however two wheeled vehicles can
>     abuse the road rules in ways which are next to impossible for those
>     in four or more wheels.
> 
> -- 
> The Flying Hamster <hamster at korenwolf.net>      http://www.korenwolf.net/
> "Everything burns well in 100% O2" -- Apollo 1 Mantra
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug

-- 
rich walker         |  Shadow Robot Company | rw at shadow.org.uk
technical director     251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?           London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug