|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In message , David Hansen
writes I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey the law? You want to try and lance my car whilst I'm driving it and I'll just laugh as I see you sat on your saddle going backwards at 30mph whilst impaled by my car. Makes me laugh just thinking about it. -- Clive |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Graculus wrote:
Boris's latest mad-cap idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources. "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. So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial "green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way, blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality? Quite barmy! That's Transport Against London for you. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless? Yes holds up hearing aids and points to last week's bruises |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent wrote:
Graculus wrote: Boris's latest mad-cap idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources. "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. Any plans which would require a law change which Boris proposes at the moment are just for show. He knows this plan will be killed off and then he can cry foul. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Phil Bradshaw ke
wrote: Steve Firth wrote: How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless? Yes holds up hearing aids and points to last week's bruises Ah, OK. *******s. 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. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 14, 5:21*pm, thaksin wrote:
Marz wrote: On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote: Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man. Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't want to shoulder charge me mate! And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians without even slowing? No, prat. sigh A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma. You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't you? Actually yes Thought so. but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****! Once again, that's dash dash space. Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately - because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed. See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole! See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you? Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look? No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good for him. You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings and I'm pointing out you're wrong. Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your own person? Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment about 'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the widely-held and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be permitted to vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put them at risk. So: cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in attacking car (apparently). ped feels at risk from cyclist = justified in attacking cyclist. See? All makes sense now :) Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in seconds. Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore able to empathise with one road user than the other? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 14, 5:12 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote: No back-tracking here. How do you get a bicycle to go forwards at 20mph when you spend all your time back-pedalling? Figure of 8 chain on a fixie. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good for him. Yes... errm you've never got the hang of this "logic" thing have you? You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings No, you admitted that you jump lights at crossings, and you've done it again up there. (points). Yes, but in my twisted brain I've differentiated between jumping a busy red light (no no) and a quiet one (go go). Doesn't make me right, just gets me to a point where I don't care what you think. You see "pk" referred to shouldering any cyclist who cycles across a crossing while he had the green man. That is, when the cyclist would encounter a red light. If you and he were on the crossing in the circumstances mentioned then you would have jumped the lights at crossings. If I were to jump a busy red light and someone did attempt to shoulder me to the ground under what 'right' would they have to do so? Last time you saw a car jump a red light did you attempt to get their number plate? blah blah blah.................. .........more blah and I'm pointing out you're wrong. You and that logic thing again, strangers forever. Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your own person? Who said any such thing? Some **** cycling at me on a crossing does affect my person, as does the same type of brainless **** using the pavement as an express cycleway. Pk did, he said he'd shoulder charge the next red light jumping cyclist who came close to him. But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap between and the next person. It may **** you off, if may scare you, poor baby, and as stupid as the act may be, it is not directed towards you as a person. It's not all about you y'know. And don't try to come the innocent on this, you've alread shown your real attitude. And quelle surprise it's the standard "**** on pedestrians" crap I've come to expect from two-wheeled scum. I thought '**** on pedestrians' was a driving mantra. Innocent. Me? Card carrying red light jumper, senior member. No it's too late for me I'm headin' to hell to drive a Vauxhall Viva for eternity. What my real attitude then? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 14, 7:22*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Phil Bradshaw ke wrote: Steve Firth wrote: How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless? Yes holds up hearing aids and points to last week's bruises Ah, OK. *******s. 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. Like all drivers are peace loving hippies, please! It's funny how there are aggressive ****s from all walks of life and yet I'll still take the ones on bikes over the ones driving cars. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"neverwas" wrote in message m... You have a good point. The only thing that lets that idea down in that the number of peds killed by cyclists is very very few. Not that I am excusing the cyclists, its just very rare. But the number of cyclists killed by traffic is a lot higher. Hence Boris's idea to reduce cyclist casualties. Death is not the only form of injury. But stats on cyclist-on-pedestrian incidents seem rare and partial because (i) there is no requirement on cyclists to stop and give details and (ii) the police do not count them as RTCs. As regards "Boris's idea", the report includes "More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve cyclists being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for London (TfL) said." But is that cyclists (i) who were waiting for red lights to turn green or (ii) cyclists at large - including those trying to "undertake" an HGV at a junction? If not (i) then the statistics are (as so often) being used to mislead. AIUI there has been at least one fatal accident where the cyclist is legitimately waiting for a green light while sitting in a cycle lane. By the placement of these lanes, the cyclist is encouraged to filter through traffic on the wrong side. ISTM that the problem is largely due to cycling in the gutter, alongside the traffic (esp. where there are HGVs turning). |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, thaksin wrote: Marz wrote: On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote: Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man. Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't want to shoulder charge me mate! And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians without even slowing? No, prat. sigh A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma. You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't you? Actually yes Thought so. but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****! Once again, that's dash dash space. Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately - because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed. See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole! See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you? Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look? No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good for him. You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings and I'm pointing out you're wrong. Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your own person? Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment about 'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the widely-held and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be permitted to vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put them at risk. So: cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in attacking car (apparently). ped feels at risk from cyclist = justified in attacking cyclist. See? All makes sense now :) Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in seconds. Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore able to empathise with one road user than the other? No, it's because the cyclist doesn't have a protective cage to shield him/her from decent people venting their anger. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look? No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good for him. You seem to be forgetting that it's not going to be an issue for you if you don't tonk straight across occupied pedestrian crossings. You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings and I'm pointing out you're wrong. One of us is. It's not me. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that you seem unable to comprehend basic logic. Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your own person? Which part of somebody tonking straight across the pedestrian crossing you happen to be crossing at the time doesn't "involve your own person"? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"thaksin" wrote in message ... Would you be okay with lorry drivers fitting signs saying "Ha ha, ****, die screaming" under their near-side wheelarches, to 'educate' cyclists who undertake them? If it deters undertaking, perhaps. But if it justifies the very common "overtake the cyclist and before passing completely, cut back in manoeuvre", No. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Yes, but in my twisted brain I've differentiated between jumping a busy red light (no no) ****ed-off pedestrian "accidentally" can't get out of your way in time. and a quiet one (go go) No pedestrian to get ****ed-off at you. Simple, huh? Doesn't make me right, just gets me to a point where I don't care what you think. That much is clear. So is this a uniquely bicycle set of affairs, or are you quite happy for other vehicles to ignore red lights that don't suit them, too? But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap between and the next person. Thought you only did it on clear junctions? Or are you psychic, and able to divine the intentions of every other cyclist on the roads? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number plate. points to yellow box containing camera |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 14, 10:30*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, MIG wrote: On Apr 14, 7:38*pm, "Graculus" wrote: Boris's latest mad-cap idea:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...87.stmandother sources. So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial "green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way, blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality? Quite barmy! Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe bet that they would be paying attention. What, like the guy i almost mowed down on my way to work this morning, when he rode out from a side road onto the roundabout i was going round? All too many cyclists pay little to no attention to the world around them.. They have a lot more reason to pay attention to their surroundings than car or lorry drivers, and are much more directly affected by them. Doesn't mean you can't find an example anywhere of a person not paying attention. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"neverwas" wrote in message m... But I don't want cyclists to be able to continue making up their own laws. (I well remember trying to cross the road during a critical mass ride in central London. The mass ignored the red lights, ignored the 85 year old lady trying to cross with me, and told us both to "go get f****d if you ain't got a fu****g bike".) That is a bit out of context. CM is an aggressive and anarchistic political protest. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: 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. Like all drivers are peace loving hippies, please! Can you point me to where anybody said they were, please? It's funny how there are aggressive ****s from all walks of life There are indeed. and yet I'll still take the ones on bikes over the ones driving cars. 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 think you can get away with it, isn't it? Would you be a "card-carrying red light jumper" if you had a registration plate and licence to lose? No, thought not. You're a typical bully - trying to hide your cowardice behind a veneer of bluster. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Clive" wrote in message ... You want to try and lance my car whilst I'm driving it and I'll just laugh as I see you sat on your saddle going backwards at 30mph whilst impaled by my car. Makes me laugh just thinking about it. I think you have demonstrated the very root of the problem which cyclists have. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:58:49 +0100, JNugent wrote: I think that you are wrong on both counts. Reality check! Have a look at the posting attributes. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. -- 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 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. Bod |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"David Hansen" wrote in message
... 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. It's not uncommon for motorists to fail to stop at zebra crossings when you are standing at the crossing waiting to cross. But the only time I've actually been *on* the crossing when a vehicle has crossed right in front of me, it was a cyclist. An HGV had stopped so I started to cross, when a cyclist appeared from the far side of the HGV (therefore he overtook on the zig zag markings), swerved round me and swore at me for making him nearly hit the illuminated "keep left" bollard on the central island. 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. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marc wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote: Snipped - attributions may be wrong Brimstone wrote: Marz wrote: On Apr 14, 2:16 pm, "pk" wrote: "Ian F." wrote in message ... "Graculus" wrote in message I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man. pk Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't want to shoulder charge me mate! If he's 23 stone then you should end up on the floor, with any luck. I don't think he has to be as heavy as that. Some of us will remember how a small boy was able to bring down Lance Armstrong. It doesn't need much of a push on the handlebars to put you on the floor. Wasn't that because his bars got hooked on a stationary object ( the boy) by a ligature ( the mussett )? I think it would have been different if the boy had been in front of Lance. Unless I'm thinking af a different occasion? Yes, that's how I remember it. It does demonstrate how little force (or stationary mass) is needed. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: 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. I idly wonder whether that logic could also be used to apply to other groups of vehicle users...? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
mileburner wrote:
"neverwas" wrote in message m... But I don't want cyclists to be able to continue making up their own laws. (I well remember trying to cross the road during a critical mass ride in central London. The mass ignored the red lights, ignored the 85 year old lady trying to cross with me, and told us both to "go get f****d if you ain't got a fu****g bike".) That is a bit out of context. CM is an aggressive and anarchistic political protest. No it's not, it's a bunch of cyclist going for a ride, we've been told that on this group often. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. Funny, I have never been nearly mown down on a pedestrian crossing by a car, but I have had that experience from a bike riding through a red light. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Mortimer wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... 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. It's not uncommon for motorists to fail to stop at zebra crossings when you are standing at the crossing waiting to cross. But the only time I've actually been *on* the crossing when a vehicle has crossed right in front of me, it was a cyclist. An HGV had stopped so I started to cross, when a cyclist appeared from the far side of the HGV (therefore he overtook on the zig zag markings), swerved round me and swore at me for making him nearly hit the illuminated "keep left" bollard on the central island. 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. The problem is that you only really remember the nutters. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
Roger Thorpe gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: 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. I idly wonder whether that logic could also be used to apply to other groups of vehicle users...? Indeed it should, and it's something that some will never learn. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In message
, Marz writes Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore able to empathise with one road user than the other? Is your other name Dug, by any chance? -- Clive |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. Assuming the goal is to improve standards of road use (rather than e.g. to appease the Daily Mail reader) I really can't see that registration plates on bikes is really going to have that much effect. -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian writes:
Roger Thorpe gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: 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. I idly wonder whether that logic could also be used to apply to other groups of vehicle users...? I have in mind taxi drivers, of whom it's often said that the unrepresentative majority give the rest a bad name. -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: 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 Umm... 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. That's because somebody decided it'd be a REALLY good idea to get rid of TrafPol in favour of cameras. ****ing stupid move. I really can't see that registration plates on bikes is really going to have that much effect. It clearly won't have much effect on users of other vehicles, of course not. But it will on cyclists. As our ****witted friend Marz is rather effectively demonstrating. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Tony Dragon writes:
Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together? A mandatory cycle lane is a lane in which other types of vehicle are not allowed, and is marked by a solid white line at its edge. As distinct from the other kind ("discretionary?" "optional?" can't remember the word) which has a dashed line and in which you are allowed to drive if you feel like it. I'm not particularly wild about the idea as they will inevitably be painted in the gutter and so encourage gutter cycling. I do wonder, though, if the planned law changes for ASLs (to make it legal for cycles to enter the reservoir without using the suicide lane) could also be used to permit left-turn-on-red for cyclists. But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop line, other cycles could be using the road. A "give way" marking would suffice for that. -dan |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk