|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz 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. Like all drivers are peace loving hippies, please! We're not talking about drivers, we're talking about pedestrians and ****s on bikes. Why *do* cyclists jump to accusing motorists every time someone points out that cyclists have a stupid, ignorant and aggressive attitude towards people walking from A to B? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
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. You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar. And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition. 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. Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on pavements and crossings. For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen wrote:
However, in this country You're perfectly welcome to it, and to keep your comment to that country. In fact I insist. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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" Both you and Adrian have allowed yourself to be hijacked by the usual cyclists' "tu quoque". The subject is not motorists jumping red lights, it is cyclists jumping red lights. For some reason the cyclists seem to want to ignore this inconvenient truth. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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. I have no reason to believe that your statements are correct. I've worked with keen cyclists who bang on and on and on and on and on... about cycling, safety and provision for cyclists. They do so to the point of having had showers installed at work so that the poor dears can get some of the stink off before starting work. Of course this provision is hugely subsidised and AFAICS not one of them is capable of leaving the place clean after use. They all seem to have mothers who follow them around picking up the trail of socks, lycra, towels and bumfluff as they proceed along dropping stuff where they stand. Anyway catch them at their desk, or more likely get cornered by them and find oneself unable to escape and they'll bang on for hours about their two pet subject - how much they spent on a bike, and endless tales of their interactions with "dangerous motorists" and on and on about their safety. Then I see the same individuals on the road. On roads like the Great West Road, where despite the cycle lanes being (a) present and (b) marked appropriately to indicate that one keeps to the appropriate side of the road (north side east bound, south side west bound) these individuals simply cycle as they wish against the flow of traffic more often than not. They also swerve at silly speed across the width of a four-lane road and ignore all red lights and Give Way signs. On the canal towpath they ride flat out at pedestrians screaming and ringing their stupid little bells. So they're lying hypocrites and I suspect that the vast majority of cyclists are the same, because every one that I have met who tells me they're not like that I have subsequently observed to be exactly like that. On the few occasions that a survey has been done, it supports my view that the overwhelming majority of cyclists are red-light jumpers. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: 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. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. The clue is in the the fact that they have different names and different legal structures. Ah, right. So California and Florida are different countries, too? I've found places named California in both England (near Caister on Sea) and Scotland (near Falkirk) but not anywhere named Florida. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 1:40*am, Adrian wrote:
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 Do they have camera's on all ped crossings? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. Yes but Hansen lives in the 19th century and the past is a foreign country. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Nugent wrote:
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. I suppose that both of our statements here are open to misinterpretation. I didn't mean that nobody who advocates safe cycling or posts on this newsgroup ever rides on the pavement. And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
... 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. I can still hear my driving instructor from 40 years ago saying "Amber. Means. Stop!" Ian |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen wrote:
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. There are lots like that in Liverpool - all the way along the A59 (Scotland Road and extensions) for example. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Both you and Adrian have allowed yourself to be hijacked by the usual cyclists' "tu quoque". The subject is not motorists jumping red lights, it is cyclists jumping red lights. For some reason the cyclists seem to want to ignore this inconvenient truth. No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Do they have camera's on all ped crossings? Camera's what? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently. Brian Robertson and "Marz Jennings" have both boasted about terrorising pedestrians. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Both you and Adrian have allowed yourself to be hijacked by the usual cyclists' "tu quoque". The subject is not motorists jumping red lights, it is cyclists jumping red lights. For some reason the cyclists seem to want to ignore this inconvenient truth. No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights. "Cyclists allowed to run red lights." Don't let the two-sheeled ******* divert the thread into their usual rants about car drivers being the scum of the earth. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
JNugent wrote: 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. That's not quite true, is it? Some who post here boast of their prowess at terrorising pedestrians on footways. I suppose that both of our statements here are open to misinterpretation. I didn't mean that nobody who advocates safe cycling or posts on this newsgroup ever rides on the pavement. And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently. Touché! I suggest we both re-interpret those posts in the light of the above. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 1:40*am, Adrian wrote:
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? No, uniquely me on a bicycle and no. 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?
"Adrian" wrote in message
... (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Both you and Adrian have allowed yourself to be hijacked by the usual cyclists' "tu quoque". The subject is not motorists jumping red lights, it is cyclists jumping red lights. For some reason the cyclists seem to want to ignore this inconvenient truth. No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights. The subject is *cyclists* jumping red lights - "Cyclists allowed to run red lights?". Now bicycles are a type of vehicle - I'll give you that - but they are one specific type of vehicle. Stay on the subject and don't digress onto other (motorised) types of vehicle. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Ian F." wrote in message
... "Daniel Barlow" wrote in message ... 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. I can still hear my driving instructor from 40 years ago saying "Amber. Means. Stop!" Or more accurately "stop if you can and it's safe to do so". If you want amber to be treated as stop, then what light do you want to use as the several-second warning that the lights are going to change from green to amber? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 15 Apr 2009 12:32:11 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:- Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. The clue is in the the fact that they have different names and different legal structures. Ah, right. So California and Florida are different countries, too? The legal/constitutional arrangements of the USA and the UK are somewhat different, despite much of the USA legal system having been inherited from the British Isles. Trying to equate them is not a convincing argument. The clue, a large clue, is in the name United Kingdom. There was a union of crowns, under the Scottish King James VI. However, that did not mean that the three countries disappeared, England, Scotland and Ireland [1]. Wales had been partly absorbed by England long before and is best thought of as a Principality, the official name, not the least because Wales generally had princes (what one might call chieftains), rather than one king, until the English invasion. Northern Ireland is a Province, formed from part of Ireland. Two countries, one principality, one province. Unions of parliaments and the question of where government was located were separate issues at separate times. For brevity I have left out the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Like any relationship there can be separate ideas on some subjects. That is good, but it becomes tiresome when some sulk as Little Englanders do from time to time. Having different ideas on some subject does not necessarily mean a desire to break the relationship. It is a pity education on this sort of thing is so poor, especially in England. The UK does not have a one size fits all solution imposed from above. This is not unique. Norway, Sweden and Denmark did at one time have a union of kings, originally under a Norwegian King. The Swedish emblem of three crowns is an echo of this [2], as is the common travel area. The union of parliaments was a separate process. After much talk, arguments over language, unrest, wars and near wars prevented by great statesmanship, all three countries have separate crowns and parliaments, but they were always three countries, no matter what the arrangements for kings and parliaments. [1] I know the union with Ireland came later. [2] probably. There are other stories of why it was created. -- 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?
"JNugent" wrote in message
... 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. There are lots like that in Liverpool - all the way along the A59 (Scotland Road and extensions) for example. Ah. OK. How do the installers decide which type of pedestrian lights to install and how do road users know which type are being used - apart from by waiting for the amber to go out if it is a flashing pedestrian type of lights or to stay on if it is a vehicle-junction type of lights? Why not make it simple and say *all* pedestrian lights have a flashing phase and *no* vehicle-junction lights have a flashing phase? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: It is a pity education on this sort of thing is so poor, especially in England. The UK does not have a one size fits all solution imposed from above. I know. It's a shame that the whole country doesn't perceive "the country" in the same way, with some wanting to hark back to a "golden era" of half a millenium ago. But... shrug they're a very small minority. Mind you, most of 'em don't even live in the bit they're referring to. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: 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? No, uniquely me on a bicycle and no. Always nice to hear a hypocrite being so honest and open about his hypocrisy. Have you considered politics as a career? I think you'd be ideally suited. You're arrogant. You're inconsistent. You're a rank hypocrite. You'd rather hurl abuse than admit a mistake. I gather Brown's looking for a right-hand man following the weekend's revelations. You have the perfect qualifications, I'd say. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote: And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently. Brian Robertson and "Marz Jennings" have both boasted about terrorising pedestrians. I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. Not a man to overstate a case in order to wind people up (unlike some others...). Marz Jennings is a name that's new to me. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 7:38*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote: 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. You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar. Quiet doesn't have to mean empty. Take this old lady who's going to nudge me of my bike if I get too close to her. She's over on the right hand side of the street, I'm on the left, she's just hit the button to cross and the lights gone red, there's no one else around. If I reach the crossing while she's still on the other side of the road (and there's no police around), I'm blowing and going. And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition. 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. Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on pavements and crossings. Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers. For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Marz" wrote in message
... On Apr 15, 7:38 am, (Steve Firth) wrote: Marz wrote: 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. You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar. Quiet doesn't have to mean empty. Take this old lady who's going to nudge me of my bike if I get too close to her. She's over on the right hand side of the street, I'm on the left, she's just hit the button to cross and the lights gone red, there's no one else around. If I reach the crossing while she's still on the other side of the road (and there's no police around), I'm blowing and going. And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition. 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. Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on pavements and crossings. Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers. For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. ===== So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set? I don't believe that pedestrians have right of way over anyone - no-one has automatic right of way in every circumstance. Rather the right of way varies depending on position and signing: a pedestrian has right of way over everyone else on a zebra or Pelican crossing, but nowhere else. A car has right of way over a bicycle if the car has a green light and the bicycle has a red light, but the right of way is reversed if it is the bicycle which has the green light. That doesn't affect the common sense rule that you should try your damndest to avoid hitting another road user irrespective of who actually has prioirty. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 1:43*am, Adrian wrote:
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? What? Aspersions were cast across cyclists in general and I retaliated that drivers shouldn't be the ones to cast the first stone. Of course my assumption that the post was from a driver could be wrong. 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. Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Marz" wrote in message
... On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote: 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. Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. ==== If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have number plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous. Your attitude is contemptible. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Marz wrote: Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. ****. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 9:04*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set? No and no. Rules of the road should be rules of the road regardless of vehicle. I don't believe that pedestrians have right of way over anyone - no-one has automatic right of way in every circumstance. Rather the right of way varies depending on position and signing: a pedestrian has right of way over everyone else on a zebra or Pelican crossing, but nowhere else. A car has right of way over a bicycle if the car has a green light and the bicycle has a red light, but the right of way is reversed if it is the bicycle which has the green light. That doesn't affect the common sense rule that you should try your damndest to avoid hitting another road user irrespective of who actually has prioirty. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 9:29*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Marz" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote: 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. Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. ==== If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have number plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous. Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing road I can shove it in their face. Your attitude is contemptible. Thank you, one does try. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Marz" wrote in message
... On Apr 15, 9:29 am, "Mortimer" wrote: "Marz" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote: 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. Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. ==== If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have number plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous. Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing road I can shove it in their face. === Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines. Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Steve Firth" wrote in message ... Roger Thorpe wrote: And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently. Brian Robertson and "Marz Jennings" have both boasted about terrorising pedestrians. The recent posts from "Marz", who to me at least is a new one, have suggested that he would do more damage to a ped who deliberately shoulder charged him than he would suffer himself. Is this what you refer to as "terrorising pedestrians"? The general attitude and content of Marz's posts about red light jumping at non-busy crossings have already suggested that he may be a bit of an arse, and probably thought of one by many URC regulars. Why would you want to make things up, or at least deliberately mis-interpret, if you didn't want to exaggerate the misdeeds of a few cyclists purely in order to create divisions? OK, so I know this is usenet and trying to be the most opinionated arse around seems to be the raison d'être for many posting here. If I've got this wrong, then please post the examples of boasts of "terrorising pedestrians". For the same reason as Roger, I may have missed them. Colin |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:15:54 +0100
"Mortimer" wrote: Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. You seem to be confusing easy overtaking with safe overtaking ... |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090415161924.2c3527e8@bluemoon... On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:15:54 +0100 "Mortimer" wrote: Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. You seem to be confusing easy overtaking with safe overtaking ... There is no reason why safe and easy have to be mutually exclusive. If there is space for a car to give me a few feet of clearance (the same as they'd give the offside of another car that they were overtaking) then that's fine. I've not found that cars try to overtake unsafely by passing very closely to me. Maybe my experiences differ from other cyclists'. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 10:15*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Marz" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 9:29 am, "Mortimer" wrote: "Marz" wrote in message .... On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote: 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. Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. ==== If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have number plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous. Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing road I can shove it in their face. === Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines. Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling. Aye 'n' there's the rub. Use the road, follow the rules, but stay out of my way. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
| 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