"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote in
:

If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan
your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the
traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you
need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.

Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved.

"Stuart Gray" wrote in message
. 109.145...
"J. Chisholm" wrote in news:e2t8v3$nd6$1
@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk:


You are obviously a very amateur driver. I've been driving for 40 years
and at one time drove 30k+ miles pa.
To date I've had no tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points.

Jim Chisholm


If it takes you a year to do 30k miles, you are obviously a slow driver,
hence the lack of tickets, fines, endorsements or penalty points.

Does everyone spend the exact same amount of time driving a car, in zones of
the same speed limit, all year?


--
Stuart

"end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems.

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Nick Finnigan
writes

"the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same
prohibition as
the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so
close to
the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding
beyond
the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green
signal or
green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;"


If you increase your speed before crossing the first line, so that you
are not then able to stop (safely) before crossing the second line,
you will still be able to obey that rule whilst passing both lines on
amber.


If you increase your speed after the light turns amber, and could have
stopped at either line if you hadn't increased your speed, then you have
broken the prohibition.

No you haven't; that is not what the rules say.

On Tue, 2 May 2006, d wrote:

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote in
:

If you have difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be
driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you
plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level
with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly
discover that you need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they
are level with the car stop line.

Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved.

Good god: careful, defensive driving - are you mad?

I do think it's be a good idea to have some sort of sign on lights that
indicated that there was a box, though, so drivers could tell it was there
even if it was covered in traffic. Personally, i'd like the same for
filter lanes - many is the time i've been riding into a junction and
suddenly found myself on top of a huge white arrow telling me 'if you try
to turn here, you will be killed'.

Why not let cars cross the front line of a bike box on red? Or on amber,
at least. That gives cars which are in the box when the lights change a
chance to get out of it, making it much more useful to cyclists, and less
irritating for drivers. If the timing of the lights was worked out
appropriately, i don't see that this would need to be any more dangerous
than the present situation.

Oh, and somebody suggested making bike boxes and pedestrian crossings
effectively box junctions - i'd certainly agree with that.

tom

--
Civis Britannicus sum.

Jonathan Morris wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't apply to the crossing on the Clerkenwell Road
where they're on a flat open road and simply ignore the lights
altogether. They only stop when crossing Farringdon Road if they can
see a car or bus about to hit them. They also turn left/right without
permission and, again, cut pedestrians up who aren't expecting them to
go against the 'no xx turn' markings.

If a cyclist wishes to turn left at a no-left-turn sign (not into a
one-way street) they should technically dismount, manoeuvre the bike on
foot and then remount. That would be a legal manouevre.

I know Clerkenwell Road reasonably well - full of traffic lights with
pedestrian phases. Enough to frustrate anyone. I wonder how they are
phased for cycles? Still, a cyclist always has the option of crossing
at a pedestrian phase by wheeling the bike across.

In message . com, Earl
Purple writes
I know Clerkenwell Road reasonably well - full of traffic lights with
pedestrian phases. Enough to frustrate anyone. I wonder how they are
phased for cycles? Still, a cyclist always has the option of crossing
at a pedestrian phase by wheeling the bike across.
S/he also has the option of leaving said dangerous machine (bike) at
home and getting P.T. like everyone else.
--
Clive

In message om, Earl
Purple writes
Remember that a cyclist will often take longer to cross a junction, so
may well have started to cross on a green signal but not complete yet
when the signal is red, particularly if the junction is on a hill.

And a cyclist who has sweated away to build up the momentum to reach a
traffic light is unlikely to do an emergency stop as the signal turns
amber right in his face. (And remember the cyclist is MUCH closer to
the junction at this time).
Not all, but most cyclists are ignorant pigs who think they can get away
with murder. Whether sweating or no to get to a junction, a red light
is a red light and means stop. Ban every cyclist that breaks the law,
they don't pay anything towards the road network and just complain about
the cycle tracks that have been constructed for their use.
--
Clive

In ,
Clive said:

Not all, but most cyclists are ignorant pigs who think they can get
away with murder. Whether sweating or no to get to a junction, a
red light is a red light and means stop. Ban every cyclist that
breaks the law, they don't pay anything towards the road network and
just complain about the cycle tracks that have been constructed for
their use.

Like the man said, "The old ones are the best".

Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the road?

In message , Brimstone
writes
"The old ones are the best".

Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the
road?
I don't know what man you're on about, but I do know what pests cyclists
are, and should be banned from all public areas.
--
Clive

In ,
Clive said:
In message , Brimstone
writes
"The old ones are the best".

Can't you come up with any new reasons for getting cyclists off the
road?
I don't know what man you're on about, but I do know what pests
cyclists are, and should be banned from all public areas.

Oh dear, don't some people go on.