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

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.

In article ,
(thaksin) wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:55:36 GMT someone who may be "neverwas"
wrote this:-

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed
by law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to
insert them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the
lights, ride on pavements etc.

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?

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?

Lorries that have warning signs against cycles passing them on the inside
are admitting that they are not safe to be allowed on the roads. They
should be required to have proper mirrors and under-run protection like
other vehicles if they are to be allowed on roads where cycles and
pedestrians are permitted.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(neverwas) wrote:

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?

That depends on what laws you have in mind.

I rather think that my answer would be yes if you mean pedestrians
and motorists committing GBH or the like - and possibly littering

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".)

And IIRC we also don't have yet the jaywalking law Ken Livingstone
proposed in 2006 (which wd have made it an offence an offence to
cross other than at a specified crossing with a green light) so
I'd rather not be lanced for crossing the road. 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.

What about pedestrians walking in designated cycle lanes? They have plenty
of pavement for them to walk on so why block cycle facilities?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.