London Banter - the quest for safety

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - the quest for safety (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/334-quest-safety.html)

the quest for safety

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:18:19 +0100, Bagpuss
wrote:

So you're the one driver who never speeds.
No, I'm the /one/ driver who never speeds, he's the /other/ one.
So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit?

Many times. In the past I've deliberately driven at speeds up to an
indicated 140mph, but these days I make a habit of keeping within the
posted limit.

You just selectively ignore other parts of the Highway Code that you
disagree with, as you have admitted here before.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible
people

But as we know Rules 45-66 are more honoured in the breach than the
observance.

And unless you make a point of never even approaching the posted limit,
you're bound to drift over it by one or two mph on your speedo from time to
time.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and
I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport
Research Group)

the quest for safety

W K wrote:
"PeterE" wrote in message
...
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

In the past I've deliberately driven at speeds up to an
indicated 140mph, but these days I make a habit of keeping within
the posted limit.

You just selectively ignore other parts of the Highway Code that you
disagree with, as you have admitted here before.

As for the HC - theres a possibility that he's not talking about
places where it applies.

He has specifically admitted contravening Rule 55 on a regular basis.

Likewise I make no claims to scrupulous adherence to Rule 103.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

the quest for safety

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:54:11 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:18:19 +0100, Bagpuss
wrote:

So you're the one driver who never speeds.
No, I'm the /one/ driver who never speeds, he's the /other/ one.
So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit?

Many times. In the past I've deliberately driven at speeds up to an
indicated 140mph, but these days I make a habit of keeping within the
posted limit.

Heh, impressive, I've only been up to about 80+ then decided I didn't
like the wind noise. For my next bike I want a supermotard, lots of
grunt, decent handling and fun at 60.

At the moment I'm having far to much fun on my new mountain bike to
even bother with the m/cycle. I've just drained the tank down to
enough to get to the petrol station. I should have a week or two
before the petrol starts going seriously off.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

the quest for safety

In article , Ian G Batten
writes
In article ,
Richard wrote:
Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where they
live?

Yes. If people live closer to their work

£285,000 for a studio flat in Canary Wharf.

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

the quest for safety

Ian G Batten writes:
In article , Huge wrote:
Yes. If people live closer to their work

£285,000 for a studio flat in Canary Wharf.

Such a policy would rapidly stop the concentation of business in London,

That would suit me down to the gorund, since I wouldn't have to pay
Thameslink £3K a year to be reamed up the arse any more.

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

the quest for safety

"PeterE" wrote in message
...

[me]
In the past I've deliberately driven at speeds up to an
indicated 140mph, but these days I make a habit of keeping within
the posted limit.

[you]
You just selectively ignore other parts of the Highway Code that you
disagree with, as you have admitted here before.

No, I don't ignore them at all. I do my best to keep within the rules, but
sometimes find it necessary to break them for my own safety. It is safer
for me to be in front of the line at a light-controlled junction than parked
in the gutter alongside a car. Where I break a rule it is deliberate and
for a reason, and if I'm nicked for it I won't bleat about the injustice.

[bill]
As for the HC - theres a possibility that he's not talking about
places where it applies.

Not the case: I was a speeding motorist for some years. I also used to
drive when excessively tired. Both behaviours have now ceased.

[you]
He has specifically admitted contravening Rule 55 on a regular basis.
Likewise I make no claims to scrupulous adherence to Rule 103.

Yes, I pass stop lines against red lights on occasion, though I never enter
the junction itself. That's a bit Clintonesque, I suppose, but could be
likened to deliberately driving at, say, 33 in a 30 limit. It is a breach
of the law but increases danger only very slightly. Advanced stop lines
allow cyclists to negotiate junctions more safely without the need to break
the law, which is a Good Thing. I have never felt the need to pass the line
where an ASL exists.

Entering the junction against a red light is very dangerous (and I don't do
it). Driving fast enough to trigger a Gatso is sufficient to put you on the
upward slope of the famous U-shaped curve. Both these behaviours are
associated with measurably increased risk.

There is a substantial body of evidence showing that speeding is dangerous,
which is why I don't do it any more. I would be interested to see any
figures on the danger posed to others by a cyclist stopping ahead of the
line at a light controlled junction. Anyone who has such info please email
me: guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net.

As an aside, I have never seen a cyclist attack another cyclist because they
were obeying the law, though I don't discount the possibility that it could
happen. I have seen drivers attack cyclists who were behaving lawfully, and
I have been the victim of three traffic tantrums caused by my apparently
unacceptable habit of driving within the speed limit (and not significantly
below it in these cases).

---
Guy
===

Respectable rules for responsible people: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk

the quest for safety

"Bagpuss" wrote in message
...

I just guess Guy is Mr Perfect then.

I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort. I am not a particularly skilful
driver so I have to work at driving safely and legally. Most of the time I
can't be bothered, so I go by bike.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

the quest for safety

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
"PeterE" wrote in message
He has specifically admitted contravening Rule 55 on a regular basis.
Likewise I make no claims to scrupulous adherence to Rule 103.

Yes, I pass stop lines against red lights on occasion, though I never
enter the junction itself. That's a bit Clintonesque, I suppose, but
could be likened to deliberately driving at, say, 33 in a 30 limit.
It is a breach of the law but increases danger only very slightly.
Advanced stop lines allow cyclists to negotiate junctions more safely
without the need to break the law, which is a Good Thing. I have
never felt the need to pass the line where an ASL exists.

But you are admitting adopting a "contingent" approach to the rules in the
HC rather than the absolute one you urge on others.

If you think it may, in some circumstances, be OK to exceed the posted speed
limit by 10% provided it increases danger only slightly, then fair enough, a
refreshing outbreak of common sense on your part.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

the quest for safety

"Clive" wrote in message
...

A few years ago I was done for not obeying fixed signals. My front
wheels were about 18 inches over the white line, when I contested in
court that I hadn't gone through the junction, I was pointedly asked,
"Did my front wheels go over the line", to which I had to answer yes,
and was fined £60 and three penalty points for not obeying fixed
signals. is this the police being over zealous, or am I mot allowed to
do what the police do regularly?

You are not allowed to do what the police do.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36

(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and,(...) the red signal shall convey the
prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line