"neverwas" wrote in message
news
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).

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.

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"?

"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.

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?

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.