GPS FORUM

At 10 Jun 2005 15:35:50 GMT, message
was posted by
Adrian , including some, all or none of the
following:


I refer the hon. gentleman to Rule 51 of the Highway Code, which
suggests that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast - note
should, it is a recommendation only.

Your duty of care is not affected by how pissed off you are with
someone. Do you behave less carefully around the myriad thoughtless
drivers you meet on the roads every day? And does this result in a
measurably increased risk of death, in the way that passing too close
to a cyclist does?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong - HL Mencken

At Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:35:49 +0100, message
was posted by Alistair J Murray
, including some, all or none of the following:


LOL!


OK, I should have put as well at the end. Most cyclists take a
great deal of care. There is a commonly-held view that (for example)
running a red light is indicative of a lack of care, but I would
suggest that actually doing this without being killed requires
enormous care - or completely stationary traffic! Note: I am not
condoning red-light jumping (which I do not do, however tempting it
might be in gridlocked traffic), but I think you get the idea - I have
the impression that you accept this, in general (proto-chavs on BMXs
notwithstanding).

Car drivers rack up about five million insurance claims per year at
the moment; failure to take care results in small dings in the
bodywork. Our bodywork is just that little bit softer, and the small
dings *hurt* :-)


Oh hell yes. Especially heavy, slow vehicles. The number of people
who cut up truck drivers...


Enforcement is pretty straightforward at present - flash, bang, wallop
what a picture... :-)


Hmmmm. Like I say, I went back and looked for evidence of Smiths
mythical golden age, and couldnt find any.


Poop-poop!


Aint that the truth.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[...]


Yeeeeeeessss....

Id be taking *much* more care myself.


This is not a significant problem here in Edinburgh, perhaps because our
traffic still (mostly) flows well enough to make it suicidal - less
attractive to enormously careful cyclists. ;)


:)

I am more absolutist in matters of priority and would tend to hop off
and walk the junction.


Lot of *highly* skilled BMXers out there - tend to keep a good look-out
too...

Cheeky, skilled, recreational road users do not upset me, I kinda like them.

We need more road joy.


Grrr...

Having recently hit by a company car driver who just wasnt looking *at*
*all* Id like to see a mandatory Ł1k excess so that dozy fuckers like
him suffer at least some pain.

Liability for consequential loss should be less arguable too.


Id also require a basic understanding of physics as a requirement.


Im disturbed by the self-incrimination aspects of S.172 quite
independent of its use in conjunction with Gatsos.

I always advise people to make the court aware of any doubt there may be
regarding the drivers identity.

[...]


TrafPol certainly seemed to be petrol first and plod second in the 80s
and early 90s, using the law to discourage dangerous driving rather
than seeing its enforcement as an end in itself.

I dont have any figures, just a feeling backed up by having interacted
on a friendly basis with TrafPol in excess of the posted limit.





A

--
Trade Oil in