Four years jail...

Doesn't look much like one either.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

*sigh*

Someone used the phrase "but an understandable feeling of revenge under
the circumstances".

I didn't understand *who* in this thread would be looking for revenge.

That's all.

 

He wasn't referring to the RTA, though, was he? So why the diversion?
Just interested.

 

"Mark T"

Making insurance compulsary wouldn't make a lot of difference, would it, as
3rd party insurance is included in home contents insurance policies so
cyclists would be covered anyway.

 

And that presupposes that all cyclists have home contents insurance.
Which they don't.

A quick google throws up a figure of 20% without any cover. This, in
some deprived areas, rises to 60%.

Next bright suggestion?

 

Bad form post - that is, both figures relate to householders with no
home contents insurance cover, not cyclists.

 

The general rule is, *always ride in the primary position unless you
are comfortable with motor traffic overtaking.*

20%, not a third, I think.

 

Judges are not infallible. That is why the Court of Appeal exists.

If you read my other posts, you will see that I accept that, given the
current sentencing guidelines and the assumption that the cyclist's
actions were such that anybody driving within the limit and not texting
would have avoided him, the sentence was correct.

I still would like to know if his failure to observe the red light was
taken in to account at all.

Otherwise, it seems to me that I am required to drive everywhere at 5
mph, in case a cyclist should decide to whizz down a steep hill as fast
as they can and through a red light in to my path and expect me to be
able to avoid them.


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

I would think so myself, or more precisely, I'm sure his story was put to
the court.

Don't even try to avoid 'em, just don't be using the phone when you make
contact.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

But you didn't add the "in this thread" bit and I merely said "Possibly" the
family etc.

Now I've got a nice sharp razor here if you want to split some more hairs.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Though not in person.

The second bit is easy enough. So far as the first bit, TBF, I think at
least a bit of fairly hard braking might be advisable.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:08:37 +0000, in

There's quite a few around us, including one where I dropped the
gixxer some years back as I failed to realise that tht dopy cow coming
from the right leg of a Y junction (upside-down), while I came from
the left, was intending to turn down my road rather than going
straight on. As Blaney, who was over collecting the 400-4 I sold him,
commented she had "the legal, if not the moral, right of way".

Bloody stupid rule, it is.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

Yup. And when zipping around in the sticks, watch out for the numpties
that forget PaD doesn't apply to the roundabouts.

 

I suspect that's because he's working out how he can apply the
"congestion charge" to cyclists.

 

Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).

Phil

 

Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it was
legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except pedestrians"
or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red traffic
light".

 

This seems right to me.
It's difficult to say what the cyclist did on this occasion and the only
details that we have is the single phrase that he "cycled through the
red light". If you take the time to look at the crash site on google
maps then you'll see that this is a really unfriendly junction to any
cyclist, and that the guy's transit time would have been quite long.
he had to - in effect cross a dual carriageway at a shallow angle.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&output=html&hl=en&q=southampton&zoom=3&zp=LUILILLI

As I understand it he was travelling east to west on A3024, she was
travelling from southeast to west on A3057.
It's hard to see anyone imagining that this is a set of lights they
could just "jump". The truth is that we'll never know what he thought he
was doing, but I can see that it was at least possible that he was doing
what he thought was prudent and safe. It doesn't absolve him, but it
starts to look understandable.
Roger Thorpe

 

Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.

Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)

Phil.

 

Cyclists are pedestrians. Look at the evidence:

They use pavements.
They use pedestrian crossings.
They ignore traffic lights and other signals.

 

Today I had to zoom up to the City for a meeting, starting 0930, so I
took the SL125, on the basis that I need only shove a scooter two inches
to one side in the bike bay and it'll slot right in. And so it proved.

Anyway, on the way up, with this thread in mind, I thought I'd count the
number of cyclists jumping red lights. I mean, not just going through as
they switch to amber or even red, but cycling straight through them...

Eight. Between Sutton and Cannon Street. Oh, and add one van[1] to that
total.

Eight fucking homicidal lunatics in one 14-mile stretch of road. And
those were just the ones I clocked. Cunts.

[1] Amazingly, black, not white.