In article , francis wrote:

Ah, another ****wit cyclist who thinks he is above the law.
Is he typical or is he the type that give others a bad name?

He's the type that gives others a bad name. Is being unable to work
that out for yourself typical of uk.transport crossposters, or are
you giving the others a bad name? :-)

JNugent writes:

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.


-dan

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:25:02 +0100
Conor wrote:
when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't
forget to indicate.

Irrelevent.

Err , yes , very relevant. Dumb cyclist riding up inside of truck + dumb
trucker not indicating = trouble.



AND

If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate,

You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew.

I see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path.

You mean if an artic goes in a straight line the trailer will too??
My god, these revelations just never stop, I need to go sit down...

B2003

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.

Post-hoc, you mean?

I'll assume you are not using that response as a way of admitting that you
don't know.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of second-hand
information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching and nearly at a
set of traffic lights which have just, this very fraction of a second, turned
amber?

Is it *supposed* to be a guessing game, or are there some rules which you
think can be consulted?

Graculus wrote:
Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources.

So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and
thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is
cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how
many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial
"green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's
approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle
crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way,
blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality?

Quite barmy!


Yesterday I approached, on my bike, a junction that had both an approach
lane and an Advanced Stop Box. The lights were RED. There was a cyclist
in the box, but the first vehicle was a van indicating left. Both myself
and another cyclists waited to the rear of the first vehicle. (We we
aware that the first vehicle in a Q at lights normally just looks at the
light and moves off when they change without looking around). Another
van was pulled up along side us. When the lights changed we all moved
off. As we reached the junction the van that had been alongside STARTED
to indicate left and pulled across our paths.
It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to
indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are
doing the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble}

What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used in
other Northern European Countries. Then cyclists could approach lights
in the provided cycle lanes in the sure knowledge that they wouldn't be
trapped by a left turning vehicle as the vehicle lights turned green for
motor vehicles.
Of course they would still be the odd idiot who would cycle up the
inside of a vehicle indicating left AFTER the advance cycle lights have
turned green, but in the vast majority of case cyclists would be safer,
and it would even be possible for alert cyclists to use an approach lane
on the left to correctly position themselves for a right turn at most
junctions.

Jim Chisholm

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:51:23 +0100 someone who may be Derek
wrote this:-

While laws governing Scotland are passed in England Scotland cannot be
a country.

Laws governing Greenland are passed in Denmark. The same used to be
true of Iceland.

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a
country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While
laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a
country.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?

A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.

Post-hoc, you mean?

It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are
judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been
committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable
infringement of civil liberties.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of
second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching
and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very
fraction of a second, turned amber?

It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask. If a driver
wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs
advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which
has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of
his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances
printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such
organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving
instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a
remedial course in driving skills.


-dan

In article , (J.
Chisholm) wrote:

What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used
in other Northern European Countries. Then cyclists could approach
lights in the provided cycle lanes in the sure knowledge that they
wouldn't be trapped by a left turning vehicle as the vehicle lights
turned green for motor vehicles.
Of course they would still be the odd idiot who would cycle up the
inside of a vehicle indicating left AFTER the advance cycle lights
have turned green, but in the vast majority of case cyclists would
be safer, and it would even be possible for alert cyclists to use
an approach lane on the left to correctly position themselves for a
right turn at most junctions.

This was part of the trial advanced cycle stop box in Devonshire Road,
Cambridge (a site you are no doubt as familiar with as I), surely? The
second set of signal heads were not implemented in later cycle advanced
stop box schemes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...

It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to
indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are doing
the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble}

That is because many drivers will combine the act of turning the wheel, with
the act of flicking the indicator stem :-(

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a
country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws
governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country.

Just as well they aren't, eh?

EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK
law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland.