🚀 go-pugleaf

Yeah I noticed that the cyclists who ride around Cambridge jumping reds 
and not having lights at night time all read Usenet.
That ought to do the trick.

Jon

On Feb 26, 1:38 pm, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Sensible advice from the University of Cambridge Students' Union
>
> You should always bear in mind that nearly all areas of the Highway Code
> which apply to motor vehicles apply equally to cyclists. In particular:
>
>     It is illegal to cycle in the dark without [...]  pedal reflectors.
Depending on the age of your bike?

>     Cycling when drunk is illegal.
>     Cycling on the pavement is against the law.
... unless the council has put a sign somewhere vaguely nearby
claiming that it isn't.

>     Going against one way streets [...] is against the law.

... again, unless the council has painted a terrifyingly narrow strip
of red paint in the gutter, or sometimes just because there's one sign
saying it isn't one way.
>
> The police are increasingly fining cyclists for cycling in the wrong
> direction on one-way streets, and for cycling without lights in the dark.
>
> Breaking the law actively undermines efforts to improve cycling facilities
> in Cambridge

Given the quality of the cycle facilities they produce, encouraging
the council to stop building facilities would probably improve safety.
Talking about access as they do a little later makes more sense for
convincing those currently uninterested in following the law to do so.

>- please stay legal.
>
> When cycling in the city centre, on largely car-free streets, it's important
> to cycle with courtesy to pedestrians. It's also important that you respect
> one way streets: irresponsible cycling will decrease the willingness of City
> and County councillors to improve facilities and access. On 12th September
> 2005 the ban on cycling through certain sections of the city centre was
> lifted, as part of an 18 month trial (starting from that date). By cycling
> carefully and being courteous to pedestrians, you'll be doing your bit
> towards ensuring that the city centre remains a cycle-friendly place.
>
> http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/welfare/cyclesafety/law.html

Peter

Mr. Benn wrote:
>Sensible advice from the University of Cambridge Students' Union

Sensible, but irritating - following the law and the highway code only
because you don't want to piss off the council and put them off from
provide more bike facilities seems a pretty weak reason to do so!  And I
speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.

>    It is illegal to cycle in the dark without lights, and in front, rear 
>and pedal reflectors.

I do actually have a front reflector, but that one is not actually a
legal requirement - like wheel reflectors it's an optional extra.

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/lights/lights.pdf

-- 
eleanor@the-blairs.co.uk                          http://lnr.livejournal.com/

On 27/02/2012 12:29, p3t3r.f0rd wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:38 pm, "Mr. Benn"<%...@invalid.com>  wrote:
>> Sensible advice from the University of Cambridge Students' Union
>>
>> You should always bear in mind that nearly all areas of the Highway Code
>> which apply to motor vehicles apply equally to cyclists. In particular:
>>
>>      It is illegal to cycle in the dark without [...]  pedal reflectors.
> Depending on the age of your bike?
>
>>      Cycling when drunk is illegal.
>>      Cycling on the pavement is against the law.
> ... unless the council has put a sign somewhere vaguely nearby
> claiming that it isn't.
>
>>      Going against one way streets [...] is against the law.
>
> ... again, unless the council has painted a terrifyingly narrow strip
> of red paint in the gutter, or sometimes just because there's one sign
> saying it isn't one way.

Luckily, if you think it "terrifying", you are not obliged to go the wrong 
way in a one-way street. Win/win.

>> The police are increasingly fining cyclists for cycling in the wrong
>> direction on one-way streets, and for cycling without lights in the dark.
>> Breaking the law actively undermines efforts to improve cycling facilities
>> in Cambridge

> Given the quality of the cycle facilities they produce, encouraging
> the council to stop building facilities would probably improve safety.
> Talking about access as they do a little later makes more sense for
> convincing those currently uninterested in following the law to do so.

Those who have no interest in complying with the law can be made to.

>> - please stay legal.
>> When cycling in the city centre, on largely car-free streets, it's important
>> to cycle with courtesy to pedestrians.

Sacrilege!

Has that writer not realised that being a rebellious free spirit who cares 
nothing for convention - and who wishes to make that manifest - is half the 
attraction?

>> It's also important that you respect
>> one way streets: irresponsible cycling will decrease the willingness of City
>> and County councillors to improve facilities and access. On 12th September
>> 2005 the ban on cycling through certain sections of the city centre was
>> lifted, as part of an 18 month trial (starting from that date). By cycling
>> carefully and being courteous to pedestrians, you'll be doing your bit
>> towards ensuring that the city centre remains a cycle-friendly place.

>> http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/welfare/cyclesafety/law.html
>
> Peter

On 27/02/2012 12:31, Eleanor Blair wrote:

> Mr. Benn wrote:

>> Sensible advice from the University of Cambridge Students' Union

> Sensible, but irritating - following the law and the highway code only
> because you don't want to piss off the council and put them off from
> provide more bike facilities seems a pretty weak reason to do so!

Agreed.

> And I
> speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.

When and where is it impossible?

I ask only because I can't think of a single footway on which a cyclist is 
obliged to cycle, a single one-way street a cyclist is forced to abuse, a 
single pedestrian crossing at which cyclists are obliged not to yield the 
appropriate priority to pedestrians or a single set of traffic lights at 
which cyclists are forced not to stop when the lights are red.

But obviously, I must have missed something.

>> It is illegal to cycle in the dark without lights, and in front, rear
>> and pedal reflectors.

> I do actually have a front reflector, but that one is not actually a
> legal requirement - like wheel reflectors it's an optional extra.

> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/lights/lights.pdf

Was he really saying that it is a legal obligation to have a rear reflector 
in front, or was it just a clumsily-constructed sentence?

In article <9r1i33F8pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent  <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 27/02/2012 12:31, Eleanor Blair wrote:
>
>> And I
>> speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.
>
>When and where is it impossible?
>
>I ask only because I can't think of a single footway on which a cyclist is 
>obliged to cycle, a single one-way street a cyclist is forced to abuse, a 
>single pedestrian crossing at which cyclists are obliged not to yield the 
>appropriate priority to pedestrians or a single set of traffic lights at 
>which cyclists are forced not to stop when the lights are red.

Try Trumpington Road.  There are many places where the psychle
farcility is narrower than a cyclist, which makes it illegal to
either continue or get off (because you are narrower when cycling
than when getting off and are not a pedestrian until after you
have done so).  There is at least one place where it you need to
cross a road, but cannot see the traffic lights from the farcility.
There are many places where it is impossible to give way to
pedestrians because there is nowhere to go and not enough space
to stop legally.  There are numerous places where attempting to
ride legally is lethally dangerous, and is therefore illegal.
The road is designed so that any slower cyclist attempting to use
the carriageway will obstruct other road users, which is illegal,
and many people find that using it is riding dangerously, which is
also illegal.

The only legal solution is not to use that route.

Dammit, as a pedestrian, I avoid that route if I can because even
the most law-abiding and considerate of cyclists has serious problems
in not causing me serious problems in certain places :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 27/02/2012 15:32, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> In article<9r1i33F8pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent<jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>> On 27/02/2012 12:31, Eleanor Blair wrote:

>>> And I
>>> speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.

>> When and where is it impossible?
>> I ask only because I can't think of a single footway on which a cyclist is
>> obliged to cycle, a single one-way street a cyclist is forced to abuse, a
>> single pedestrian crossing at which cyclists are obliged not to yield the
>> appropriate priority to pedestrians or a single set of traffic lights at
>> which cyclists are forced not to stop when the lights are red.

> Try Trumpington Road.

Is that a place where a cyclist is:

(a) obliged to cycle on the pedestrian-only footway, or

(b) forced to abuse one-way working by cycling the wrong way, or

(c) cannot avoid abusing the rights of pedestrians using a crossing by 
failing to accord precedence as required?

Or perhaps:

(d) it contains a set of traffic lights which cyclists are forced to ignore 
when red?

> There are many places where the psychle
> farcility is narrower than a cyclist, which makes it illegal to
> either continue or get off (because you are narrower when cycling
> than when getting off and are not a pedestrian until after you
> have done so).

In what way is it unlawful to cycle on some other part of the carriageway?

> There is at least one place where it you need to
> cross a road, but cannot see the traffic lights from the farcility.

What are you talking about, "cross a road" whilst on a bike? Crossing the 
road is a pedestrian concept.

> There are many places where it is impossible to give way to
> pedestrians because there is nowhere to go and not enough space
> to stop legally.

Don't talk daft. You simply stop at the line marked for the purpose. You 
don't need any more space or indication than that (and either a pedestrian on 
the crossing or the lights at red).


> There are numerous places where attempting to
> ride legally is lethally dangerous, and is therefore illegal.

Rubbish.

> The road is designed so that any slower cyclist attempting to use
> the carriageway will obstruct other road users, which is illegal,
> and many people find that using it is riding dangerously, which is
> also illegal.

Perhaps you can cite the legislation in detail.

> The only legal solution is not to use that route.

That is the first sensible point you've made, and the nonsense you've posted 
above came as a surprise, considering your normal standard of argument.

> Dammit, as a pedestrian, I avoid that route if I can because even
> the most law-abiding and considerate of cyclists has serious problems
> in not causing me serious problems in certain places :-(

When you're on foot, let cyclists do their own worrying about themselves. You 
can rely on them to do exactly that, if little else.

In article <9r1mtpFdkbU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent  <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[ A large amount of offensive nonsense snipped. ]

It may surprise you to know that not all cyclists and pedestrians
are athletic and, in particular, some of the former and many of
the latter have trouble with balance.  Everything that I said can
be pointed out on the ground, too, and many of your 'questions'
were either answered elsewhere in what I posted or are clearly
nonsense from an inspection of the route.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 27/02/2012 16:09, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> JNugent<jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>  wrote:

> [ A large amount of offensive nonsense snipped. ]

Yes, but you snipped my stuff as well.

> It may surprise you to know that not all cyclists and pedestrians
> are athletic and, in particular, some of the former and many of
> the latter have trouble with balance.  Everything that I said can
> be pointed out on the ground, too, and many of your 'questions'
> were either answered elsewhere in what I posted or are clearly
> nonsense from an inspection of the route.

There is no road layout which justifies breaking the law and none which 
justifies putting pedestrians at risk from which the law is designed (among 
other things) to protect us.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:32:11 +0000 (GMT), nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>In article <9r1i33F8pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
>JNugent  <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>On 27/02/2012 12:31, Eleanor Blair wrote:
>>
>>> And I
>>> speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.
>>
>>When and where is it impossible?
>>
>>I ask only because I can't think of a single footway on which a cyclist is 
>>obliged to cycle, a single one-way street a cyclist is forced to abuse, a 
>>single pedestrian crossing at which cyclists are obliged not to yield the 
>>appropriate priority to pedestrians or a single set of traffic lights at 
>>which cyclists are forced not to stop when the lights are red.
>
>Try Trumpington Road.  There are many places where the psychle
>farcility is narrower than a cyclist, which makes it illegal to
>either continue or get off (because you are narrower when cycling
>than when getting off and are not a pedestrian until after you
>have done so).  There is at least one place where it you need to
>cross a road, but cannot see the traffic lights from the farcility.
>There are many places where it is impossible to give way to
>pedestrians because there is nowhere to go and not enough space
>to stop legally.  There are numerous places where attempting to
>ride legally is lethally dangerous, and is therefore illegal.
>The road is designed so that any slower cyclist attempting to use
>the carriageway will obstruct other road users, which is illegal,
>and many people find that using it is riding dangerously, which is
>also illegal.
>
>The only legal solution is not to use that route.

Good - please do so.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:31:38 -0800 (PST), simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 27, 4:09�pm, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <9r1mtpFdk...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>> JNugent �<jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> [ A large amount of offensive nonsense snipped. ]
>>
>> It may surprise you to know that not all cyclists and pedestrians
>> are athletic and, in particular, some of the former and many of
>> the latter have trouble with balance. �Everything that I said can
>> be pointed out on the ground, too, and many of your 'questions'
>> were either answered elsewhere in what I posted or are clearly
>> nonsense from an inspection of the route.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick Maclaren.
>
>Is Numpty Nugent getting offensive *as well* as spouting nonsense now?
>You must be winding him up a treat - it is a pity I cannot read his
>part in your exchange as the tedious troll in in my killfile.



Why not tell the world how you have got this "kill-file" facility to work in
Google groups; there are many who would like to take advantage of  it.

--
Mason is in denial - he is an alcoholic.
He claims that he drinks ten to twelve pints
 a night and that it does him no harm.
He needs to seek help.

"Judith" <jmsmith2011@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:4jdnk7p88423cv06dr9m63onpctqo3tsml@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:31:38 -0800 (PST), simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk 
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 4:09 pm, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>> In article <9r1mtpFdk...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>
>>> JNugent  <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ A large amount of offensive nonsense snipped. ]
>>>
>>> It may surprise you to know that not all cyclists and pedestrians
>>> are athletic and, in particular, some of the former and many of
>>> the latter have trouble with balance.  Everything that I said can
>>> be pointed out on the ground, too, and many of your 'questions'
>>> were either answered elsewhere in what I posted or are clearly
>>> nonsense from an inspection of the route.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nick Maclaren.
>>
>>Is Numpty Nugent getting offensive *as well* as spouting nonsense now?
>>You must be winding him up a treat - it is a pity I cannot read his
>>part in your exchange as the tedious troll in in my killfile.
>
>
>
> Why not tell the world how you have got this "kill-file" facility to work 
> in
> Google groups; there are many who would like to take advantage of  it.

I think Google would be very interested to know about a feature that haven't 
even implemented. 

"Mr. Benn" <Mr_Benn2293841@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:jigdc9$pqh$1@dont-email.me...
> "Judith" <jmsmith2011@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:4jdnk7p88423cv06dr9m63onpctqo3tsml@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:31:38 -0800 (PST), simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 27, 4:09 pm, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>>> In article <9r1mtpFdk...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>
>>>> JNugent  <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ A large amount of offensive nonsense snipped. ]
>>>>
>>>> It may surprise you to know that not all cyclists and pedestrians
>>>> are athletic and, in particular, some of the former and many of
>>>> the latter have trouble with balance.  Everything that I said can
>>>> be pointed out on the ground, too, and many of your 'questions'
>>>> were either answered elsewhere in what I posted or are clearly
>>>> nonsense from an inspection of the route.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Nick Maclaren.
>>>
>>>Is Numpty Nugent getting offensive *as well* as spouting nonsense now?
>>>You must be winding him up a treat - it is a pity I cannot read his
>>>part in your exchange as the tedious troll in in my killfile.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not tell the world how you have got this "kill-file" facility to work 
>> in
>> Google groups; there are many who would like to take advantage of  it.
>
> I think Google would be very interested to know about a feature that 
> haven't even implemented.


Sorry, "hasn't even been implemented" 

On Feb 27, 2:21 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 27/02/2012 12:29, p3t3r.f0rd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:38 pm, "Mr. Benn"<%...@invalid.com>  wrote:
> >> Sensible advice from the University of Cambridge Students' Union
>
> >> You should always bear in mind that nearly all areas of the Highway Code
> >> which apply to motor vehicles apply equally to cyclists. In particular:
>
> >>      It is illegal to cycle in the dark without [...]  pedal reflectors.
> > Depending on the age of your bike?
>
> >>      Cycling when drunk is illegal.
> >>      Cycling on the pavement is against the law.
> > ... unless the council has put a sign somewhere vaguely nearby
> > claiming that it isn't.
>
> >>      Going against one way streets [...] is against the law.
>
> > ... again, unless the council has painted a terrifyingly narrow strip
> > of red paint in the gutter, or sometimes just because there's one sign
> > saying it isn't one way.
>
> Luckily, if you think it "terrifying", you are not obliged to go the wrong
> way in a one-way street. Win/win.
>
> >> The police are increasingly fining cyclists for cycling in the wrong
> >> direction on one-way streets, and for cycling without lights in the dark.
> >> Breaking the law actively undermines efforts to improve cycling facilities
> >> in Cambridge
> > Given the quality of the cycle facilities they produce, encouraging
> > the council to stop building facilities would probably improve safety.
> > Talking about access as they do a little later makes more sense for
> > convincing those currently uninterested in following the law to do so.
>
> Those who have no interest in complying with the law can be made to.

They could be, but as far as I know the only deterrent currently used
in Cambridge is minor spot fines around 3 evenings a year? Police in
cars certainly seem unconcerned by RLJ-ers and unlit cyclists, and it
remains true that if you see a police officer on foot in central
Cambridge it's a pretty good bet that there's a royal or an MP
visiting.

On 27/02/2012 15:32, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article<9r1i33F8pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent<jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>> On 27/02/2012 12:31, Eleanor Blair wrote:
>>
>>> And I
>>> speak as someone who does try to follow the rules where possible.
>>
>> When and where is it impossible?
>>
>> I ask only because I can't think of a single footway on which a cyclist is
>> obliged to cycle, a single one-way street a cyclist is forced to abuse, a
>> single pedestrian crossing at which cyclists are obliged not to yield the
>> appropriate priority to pedestrians or a single set of traffic lights at
>> which cyclists are forced not to stop when the lights are red.
>
> Try Trumpington Road.  There are many places where the psychle
> farcility is narrower than a cyclist, which makes it illegal to
> either continue or get off (because you are narrower when cycling
> than when getting off and are not a pedestrian until after you
> have done so).  There is at least one place where it you need to
> cross a road, but cannot see the traffic lights from the farcility.
> There are many places where it is impossible to give way to
> pedestrians because there is nowhere to go and not enough space
> to stop legally.  There are numerous places where attempting to
> ride legally is lethally dangerous, and is therefore illegal.
> The road is designed so that any slower cyclist attempting to use
> the carriageway will obstruct other road users, which is illegal,
> and many people find that using it is riding dangerously, which is
> also illegal.

Sponging freeloaders should be grateful for what they are given.

-- 
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University