"Mortimer" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first three
seconds of red" bit of the posting.

I didn't mention it because I was taking it as read that going through a
red light, even in the first three seconds, is an offence

Same as doing 71mph on the motorway is an offence - but not one that'll
be prosecuted. Zero tolerance doesn't work as a blanket policy.

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There seems to be a small minority of cyclists who are so arrogant that
they think that they do not need to stop for anything, ever. They give
the vast majority of safe, courteous cyclists a bad name.

One could say the same thing about any other group of road users.
However, it is usually cyclists who are lumped together by those with no
better arguments.

Odd. I thought it was usually those in cars lumped together by many of
the denizens of uk.rec.cycling and some of the cycling denizens of
uk.transport.

On 15 Apr 2009 11:10:27 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority.

That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country
the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Bod wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:19:54 GMT someone who may be "neverwas"
wrote this:-

It's bad enough having getting scratched, bruise and punched now when
daring to use a pedestrian crossing or controlled crossing in a
manner which might require a cyclist to extend his (or very rarely
her) journey by 5 seconds.

Every time (at least so far) that I have nearly been struck on
pedestrian crossings the criminal has ben a motorist.


Are you sure it isn't your attitude? I've been driving cars/
riding bicycles and m/bikes for over 40 yrs and only ever
encountered 'one' stroppy motorist,who seemed to have a srew loose.

I've been a pedestrian for even longer than that and can recall exactly one
stroppy driver who didn't want to accord precedence to my wife and myself
when we were using a (zebra) crossing.

He was foreign, and I now know they don't do things our way in his country.

Adrian wrote:
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Every time (at least so far) that I have nearly been struck on
pedestrian crossings the criminal has ben a motorist.

That's odd. For me it's been almost 100% cyclists.

Yes - pretty close to 100% for me too (and getting closer to 100% every day).

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about
*their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their
interaction with pedestrians.

Your error here is to group all cyclists as a homogeneous group. The
cyclists trying to improve safety are not the same as the aggressive
pedestrian intimidating ones.
Roger Thorpe

That's not quite true, is it?

Some who post here boast of their prowess at terrorising pedestrians on footways.

Tony Dragon wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:58:49 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

"Cyclists may legally be able to go through red traffic lights under
plans being considered in London.
"More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve
cyclists being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for
London (TfL) said."

Two things:

(a) Boris isn't TaL, and
(b) it doesn't stand a chance of being enacted by Parliament, as it
would mean that there were two completely different rules in force in
thee UK.

I think that you are wrong on both counts.

(a) About the only thing Boris does have executive control over is
TfL.
(b) In a year or a little over a year Parliament could be filled with
Boris' pals. Besides, it may not require Parliament approval - a
little white paint on the road defining a mandatory cycle lane without
a stop line for left turning cyclists is all that should be required.
Junctions like that already exist in the UK, albeit with the cycle
lane bumping up onto the pavement past the lights.

Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together?
But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop line,
other cycles could be using the road.

In the "solution" proposed above by TC, the route would not be through a red
light, and as a system, it could only be put into place at enormous cost for
the works necessary (and would probably never be extended to all lights for
that reason).

The reports speak of "going through red lights", not "being provided with an
alternative route not subject to lights".

That's a different matter altogether.

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Adrian writes:

I'd prefer there weren't any. Still, at least there's nice easy ways to
identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you

Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't
even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three
seconds of red, because "everyone does that"

And even then, the cameras only get RLJ and speeding. The more general
offences of "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit",
"driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and
almost entirely unprosecuted

....along with cycling along footways, cycling the wrong way (whether on the
footway or not) in a one-way street and cycling through red traffic lights at
any and every stage of the phase (whatever is encountered, as it comes), you
mean?

Daniel Barlow wrote:
"Mortimer" writes:

It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber
because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an

TSRGD 2002 para 36

(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at
the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g),
the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall
not proceed beyond the stop line;

[...]

(e) 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;

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Unless the vehicle is too close to be
stopped safely, it's the same offence as going through on red.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too
close to be stopped safely"?

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:18:01 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:-

What I was disagreeing with was your implication that
*all* cases of going through amber lights were offences: you didn't
distinguish between the case where a car has plenty of time to stop at the
amber light and the case where a car is too close to the lights to stop.

You were not disagreeing with me on that point, but with someone
else.

By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a pedestrian
crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that these always had a
flashing amber phase between red and green, during which it was legal for
cars to set off or drive across providing the crossing was clear of
pedestrians. I was surprised the other day to find a pedestrian-only
crossing where the lights went to solid amber instead of flashing amber.

Could be a crossing also for (mounted) horse riders or also for
(mounted) cyclists, which don't have a flashing amber period. Could
also be one of the "improved" pedestrian only crossings which also
don't have this feature. The "improvements" are not designed to make
things easier for pedestrians BTW.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54