OT: New driving laws and cyclists etc

I wouldn't expect a cyclist to go at walking pace. I would expect a cyclist to be able to go a little faster than walking pace (but restricted to maybe

A lot of the problem with cyclists using pavements is that pedestrians are unbelievably ill-disciplined and walk out in front of other pedestrians (never mind cyclists) in a way that would keep the courts in permanent session if vehicles did the same. Not every pedestrian who uses a pavement wants to walk at the speed of a wounded snail or to stop and natter to friends, blocking the pavement - some of us actually want to go from A to B at a comfortable walking pace.

In such cases, it isn't "the wrong way", is it?

And such streets are not really "one way".

According to a sizeable proportion of them, everything is always someone else's fault.

That isn't illegal!

Agreed. But that is not to say that other pedestrians must clear a path for us.

No bicycles are crushed.

They're auctioned. Large quantities of them. I was to a city auction once, not to buy anything, just to watch. In a city with a bike theft problem, this is what it looks like.

And they're auctioned, to make a bit of money off them. You won't find expensive bicycles there, just the usual beaters.

I have no idea, how the police come by so many. I don't think I've seen any "city-beat" articles in the news, about where they are coming from. But there can be a lot of them.

Paul

The "due care" is the condition of the "road shoulders".

That's why more caution should have been used.

In situations where a wide, flush, shoulder is available on a road, there are more options for both parties.

I tried looking for more "context" in this case, such as if there is a Google Maps entry, but all the web sites basically all parrot the same reportage.

That "track" isn't designed to any standard.

Imagine a car driver, by themselves, navigating that track in the dark. I wouldn't want to do that.

Paul

So it doesn't exist.

Thanks for confirming / admitting it.

I had a bike nicked once, it was very distinctive (front wheel drive recumbent) and I sent pictures to the local police stations.

Eighteen months later I got it back from the police station where there were probably more than a hundred recovered stolen bikes - someone had recalled my unusual picture.

Seems they'd raided one of those 'Cash Converter' type shops where junkies pawn their loot.

Is stamping the owner's postcode into the frame still a thing? I doubt every bike thief carries an angle-grinder.

There are sadly rather a lot of cyclist serious injuries in London. And very few prosecutions. Meaning the police have decided the cyclist was at fault. Most are at junctions well covered by CCTV, etc. So not due to a lack of evidence.

They are one way for all other traffic. With the usual No Entry sign.

It does say quite a bit about the average cyclists attitude to the law. Buying bikes or bits of bikes rather obviously nicked.

the usual sign *plus* a supplementary plate with the legend "Except cycles"

That'll be at the end a car can't enter into. What about the other end, which will have the blue one-way sign. Does that have any indication that cyclists may be coming at them?

yup - instead of the simple white arrow(s) on a blue background the same plus on oncoming arrow and bike symbol.

I assume you don't drive in London.

BUT the bike had not been bought it was still in the shop!!! Think about it.

Christ some people are some bigoted it blinds them.

I'm talk about no-collision incidents. Car drivers are prosecuted simply for going through a red light, even if there is no collision. Cyclists should be prosecuted in the same way. If they want to be treated as "part of the traffic" they should abide by the same laws and be subject to the same penalties.

When I cycle, I do so as if I were a human-powered car with an identifiable registration number, and I obey the same laws. The only things I'm allowed to do as a cyclist are to get off and walk my bike across a pedestrian crossing beside a set of traffic lights, to avoid a queue, and to walk my bike the wrong way up a one-way street to avoid a lengthy diversion.

That's what I'd expect: a sign to communicate "expect oncoming cyclists". Part of the problem is that cyclists on such roads seem to use any bit of the road that they feel like. I approached one who was cycling on the right hand side of the road (in his direction); it felt odd to overtake him as if I were driving on the RHS of the road. And very often cyclists ride n-abreast across the whole width of the one-way street that I posted photos of earlier in the thread.

Incidentally, don't always trust white-on-blue lane-marking signs. I encountered this road layout

It is, however, sadly true.

Get yourself a nice vantage point in London - best at a busy junction - and draw your own conclusions. It will be very rare to see a motor vehicle scatter pedestrians when they are legally crossing the road with their lights. But happens regularly with bicycles.

You've not noticed that even a chained up bike often gets bits nicked? I doubt for their scrap value. Therefore by another cyclist or to be sold to another cyclist.

Odd you think me blinded. I have no trouble seeing a red light and stopping. Same with pedestrians on a crossing. Or knowing what a pavement is and not driving on it.

But of course all cyclists expect others to have bionic vision. Hence dressing in dark clothes and riding without lights at night.