Ting ting...

[nicknorman]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

I doubt it: you have no authority to go at more than 70 m.p.h. Neither has anyone else (except the emergency services). People should move over to let them through, even if they're doing 90 m.p.h. Otherwise you can't be obstructing anyone because that anyone doe not have the right to exceed the speed limit, which he would have to do to overtake you if you were driving on the legal speed limit.

Oh, and I suggest that it would not be an "excuse". Excuses are for use when you've done something wrong. If I don't pay my fare on the train, "I left my wallet at home" would be an excuse. But if I did pay my fare, I would need no excuse because I had behaved correctly.

Perhaps one of our ex-police members could clarify the law in such cases.

The Highway Code is quite clear on the point of not driving along in the RH lane just because you are on the speed limit. The method of driving you are supporting is contrary to the Highway Code and that makes it BAD DRIVING. I quote:

"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The Highway Code is quite clear on the point of not driving along in the RH lane just because you are on the speed limit. The method of driving you are supporting is contrary to the Highway Code and that makes it BAD DRIVING. I quote:

"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking.

I never suggested that anyone should do that.

[nicknorman]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

I never suggested that anyone should do that.

You certainly seemed to propose the view that it was perfectly ok to do so.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You certainly seemed to propose the view that it was perfectly ok to do so.

I do like the politicalspeak of "certainly seemed".

No, I certainly seemed not to.

[Victor Vectis]

4 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Excellent! The Archers will be along in a minute.

   ?  

Try this instead: dumteedum

[Tunnelman51]

I have the old fashioned Briiiing Briiing bell on my bike.

If they don't hear that, a light application of the brakes results in the most awful honking noise of which a flock Canada Geese would be proud.

[zenataomm]

2 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

   ?  

Try this instead: dumteedum

Well that was an hour out of my life ..... thanks, duly bookmarked.

41 minutes ago, Tunnelman51 said:

I have the old fashioned Briiiing Briiing bell on my bike.

If they don't hear that, a light application of the brakes results in the most awful honking noise of which a flock Canada Geese would be proud.

They used to say the old London cabs used to rely on noisy brakes.  They didn't slow them they just warned everyone to get out of the way.

[Neil2]

12 hours ago, X Alan W said:

No Idea if the doughnut shaped ones are still available but the larger mushroom shaped "Lucas King of the road " models are now collectors items for vintage/historic bike movement  I saw 2 on a stall at a cycle jumble a couple months back they were in no way pristine & hes asking £ 60 for 1 & £75 for the other

Bugger.

Yet another item to add to the list of Things From My Childhood I Wish I Had Hung On To.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

On 9/5/2017 at 21:39, Neil2 said:

I know cyclists on the towpath are here to stay but that ting ting noise is driving me mad.  On the Leeds LIverpool it's an almost constant refrain.

When we were kids you had a proper bell that made a more acceptable "brrrring brrrrring" noise they had a removable cover with t sort of whizzy thing inside on a ratchet can you still get them?  

I take it from what you are saying "....almost constant refrain....." that a lot of bikes are coming past you. Are you seriously suggesting that a 'constant refrain' of those aggressive sounding Brrrrrring Brrrrrring bells would in some way be better? I always thought that they were crap when I was a child, and still do. The current 'ting' bells sound far less aggressive, I'd rather have a hundred of them come past me than one of the old fashioned bells.

[JamesWoolcock]

On 9/5/2017 at 22:25, Victor Vectis said:

But what is 'Ting ting' meant to mean?

Is it "Please be aware that there is a bicycle behind you?" or "GET OUT OF MY BL00DY WAY"?

I think often it means: 'I've tinged you and I am now absolved of all my responsibilities in Law to Third Parties'!

[Sir Nibble]

10 hours ago, JamesWoolcock said:

I think often it means: 'I've tinged you and I am now absolved of all my responsibilities in Law to Third Parties'!

That guy who killed a woman by riding into her on a bike illegally devoid of a front brake reckons it was her fault because he yelled. "get the f**k out of my way" twice .

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

That guy who killed a woman by riding into her on a bike illegally devoid of a front brake reckons it was her fault because he yelled. "get the f**k out of my way" twice .

Well to be fair to that chap, he was going through a green traffic light, she stepped out into the road without looking properly, head down looking at her phone. She was 50% to blame for the collision but of course because she's dead, all the blame is passed to the cyclist. And yes of course, he should have a bicycle with proper brakes.

[sirweste]

A thread about the noise modern bike bells make....

Because this wound you lot up last time; I don't have a bell, I don't like em, I think they are rude. I will instead if there is no way past I will politely ask to get by using the voice that evolution gave me. The other method is that I just whip past unheard unseen if the situation allows, as I feel this is often a very safe way of passing folk as they won't unpredictably move around, and certainly not to the verge / canal edge where I'm passing.

I love bikes, I love going fast on em. 

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well to be fair to that chap, he was going through a green traffic light, she stepped out into the road without looking properly, head down looking at her phone. She was 50% to blame for the collision but of course because she's dead, all the blame is passed to the cyclist. And yes of course, he should have a bicycle with proper brakes.

Apparently she even stepped "back into his path". But yep he should have had a front brake too. And he certainly seems like a right pr1ck

[David Mack]

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well to be fair to that chap, he was going through a green traffic light, she stepped out into the road without looking properly, head down looking at her phone. She was 50% to blame for the collision but of course because she's dead, all the blame is passed to the cyclist. And yes of course, he should have a bicycle with proper brakes.

And brakes apart, he wasn't committing any offence under current road traffic laws, so they had to prosecute him under a 19th century law intended to address reckless horse and carriage drivers.

[Athy]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Well to be fair to that chap, he was going through a green traffic light, she stepped out into the road without looking properly, head down looking at her phone. She was 50% to blame for the collision but of course because she's dead, all the blame is passed to the cyclist. And yes of course, he should have a bicycle with proper brakes.

What you say has merit, and such thoughts have crossed my mind too; I thank his appallingly callous attitude has not stood him in good stead.

[Sir Nibble]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Well to be fair to that chap, he was going through a green traffic light, she stepped out into the road without looking properly, head down looking at her phone. She was 50% to blame for the collision but of course because she's dead, all the blame is passed to the cyclist. And yes of course, he should have a bicycle with proper brakes.

I wonder if he would agree that if a car drives over a cyclist it's the cyclist's fault for not getting out of the way despite the motorist sounding his horn.

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I wonder if he would agree that if a car drives over a cyclist it's the cyclist's fault for not getting out of the way despite the motorist sounding his horn.

I think he would probably agree if the event was at traffic lights, the car was on a green light and the bicycle crossing on a red light.

Edited September 7, 2017 by nicknorman

[Sir Nibble]

39 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think he would probably agree if the event was at traffic lights, the car was on a green light and the bicycle crossing on a red light.

In that case the road would be strewn with dead cyclists.

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

In that case the road would be strewn with dead cyclists.

??. This seems a non-sequitur.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

And brakes apart, he wasn't committing any offence under current road traffic laws, so they had to prosecute him under a 19th century law intended to address reckless horse and carriage drivers.

For which he was convicted, does it matter what law he was prosecuted under? Murder is prosecuted under Common Law which is a whole lot older than some modern 19th century stuff, does that make the conviction any less viable? Given the minimal number of people killed by cyclists per annum (it would probably need to be per decade to give whole numbers) is it really worth the effort of any change in the law? or is it just a case of 'something must be done'

[BruceinSanity]

Murder used to be a Common Law offence, but is now prosecuted under the Homicide Act 1957, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_Act_1957, apparently.

[adam1uk]

There was a cyclist repeatedly tinging on the towpath this morning as he approached from behind a jogger who'd slowed to a walk.  The jogger had earphones in and couldn't hear a thing -- and jumped about four feet in the air when the cyclist came to within a couple of inches of him!

[zenataomm]

He didn't land on an angler by any chance?

[Canal321]

On 06/09/2017 at 12:58, zenataomm said:

I don't even want to experience the shock of a person on a lump of metal suddenly careering around me from no where, let alone waking up in hospital because I'd stooped to the right to pick up my dog's Doo-Doo.

If you have no headphones in and are aware of your surroundings then you will hear the ting in plenty of time and can step to the side accordingly. The bell is used to avoid the shock. Unless you decide to ignore it by listening to loud music, then you will get the shock that you deserve. 

As for clearing the dog poop, look before you leap springs to mind.... problem solved

 

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

For which he was convicted, does it matter what law he was prosecuted under? Murder is prosecuted under Common Law which is a whole lot older than some modern 19th century stuff, does that make the conviction any less viable? Given the minimal number of people killed by cyclists per annum (it would probably need to be per decade to give whole numbers) is it really worth the effort of any change in the law? or is it just a case of 'something must be done'

If the woman had walked out into the road with head down when the lights were green for traffic and been hit by a car doing 18 mph in 30 limits do you think the motorist would have had the book thrown at him in the same way?

The cyclist was an undoubted pillock, but he does look to have been more harshly treated than a car driver in similar circumstances would have been.