|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Adrian" wrote in message ... If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he could pull up alongside? You can't actually prevent it. I have been in the situation where I have stopped for a children's crossing patrol and because I turn right immediately after the crossing, I am toward the right side of the lane. A car pulls up alongside me on the right and stops, straddling the centre line. I could only guess that she was using the cyclist as a kerb marker :-( |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Dave Larrington" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he could pull up alongside? Because preventing a vehicle from overtaking is something one should never ever do ;-) cough And where would he have been overtaking too...? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:57:43 +0100, "J. Chisholm"
wrote: snip What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used in other Northern European Countries. No chance - insufficient numbers of cyclists to make the cost even a serious consideration. -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 16, 9:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:59:17 +0100 David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:51:23 +0100 someone who may be Derek wrote this:- While laws governing Scotland are passed in England Scotland cannot be a country. * Laws governing Greenland are passed in Denmark. The same used to be true ofIceland. Iceland had it´s own legal system most of the time Iceland was governed from Denmark. Some of the laws passed in Iceland were the same ones as passed in Denmark but it was a seperate legal system. If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Scotland is a country, wales and NI are provinces. Scotland had its own monarchy until james wandered south in the 17th century and its own self governing parliament up until the 18th century. Wales was never anything more than an area of tribal feifdoms living around some mountains who happened to speak the same language. Even their so called princes never controlled the whole region and since the 13th century its effectively been part of england anyway. Ireland like wales was just a mishmash of tribes and could never really be called a country other than by definition of its coastline. B2003- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:25:29AM -0500, wrote:
In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: very few car drivers jump red lights, fewer do it deliberately, and fewer still do it regularly. Which is really rather different from cyclists, at least in London. You are joking! I will concede that cyclists ignore lights more often than motorists do but otherwise you are deluded. Would care to join me for an exciting evening of traffic counting? -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 01:28:51PM +0100, Brimstone wrote:
Adrian wrote: 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. By that argument, Texas and Louisiana are different countries. You lose. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Mortimer wrote:
Why not make it simple and say *all* pedestrian lights have a flashing phase and *no* vehicle-junction lights have a flashing phase? Because when you have a vehicle junction and pedestrian crossing at the same place, the universe would implode, perhaps? -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence I'm in retox |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:- If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. Must try better. 1/10. -- 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 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian wrote this:- If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. Must try better. 1/10. More homework required? ;-) Bod |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes: Daniel Barlow wrote: JNugent writes: [ law regarding amber traffic lights:] In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too close to be stopped safely"? A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called "judges", appropriately enough. Post-hoc, you mean? It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties. Who was talking about traffic offences? I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the law says and what it means. You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be legal or not. How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very fraction of a second, turned amber? It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask. That's exactly wahat I *was* asking. If a driver wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a remedial course in driving skills. So you don't actually know what "too close to be stopped safely" means? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen wrote:
On 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian wrote this:- If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. Nice try. Ah, the standard Hansen admission of defeat. However, I already knew the details. Your reply made it clear that you do not know the details, not event he broad-brush picture. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. They are not legislation. In the absence of national legislation EU Directives are not enforceable. Must try better. 1/10. "David Hansen has declared that cars can run on magic moonbeams so it must be true." |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian wrote this:- If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little hypocritical. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
" cupra" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little hypocritical. Do you? I find the massive hypocrisy merely adds to the hilarity. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. Nice try. Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate. However, I already knew the details. Ah. My apologies. I didn't realise you were deliberately talking ********. I assumed you did it accidentally. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws ITYM "It is not accurate". and there is a pretence that they are optional. You may wish to refresh yourself on the copyright & software patents directive from a few years ago, to name but one. Must try better. 1/10. You really, really must. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Adrian" wrote in message ... " cupra" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little hypocritical. Do you? I do, in the sense that IMV it links being English to being Xenophobic about Europe(-eans) I find the massive hypocrisy merely adds to the hilarity. Exactly - using HasenRules(tm) he's lost the argument! |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
cupra wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... [snip] Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little hypocritical. And now he'll have a hissy fit and accuse you of "abusing" him which is the other Hansen tactic for trying to escape the hole that he has dug. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent writes:
Who was talking about traffic offences? A brief survey of the thread in Google Groups indicated that Adrian was, Mortimer (who explicitly said "going through on amber ... is not actually an offence") was, and in quoting the legislation that creates the offence, I obviously was too. If you were talking about something else you might have said so. I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the law says and what it means. You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be legal or not. In exactly the same way and to the same extent, they cannot know in advance whether their conduct will be judged as careless driving or dangerous driving. Yet most of us seem to get along most of the time. -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes: Who was talking about traffic offences? A brief survey of the thread in Google Groups indicated that Adrian was, Mortimer (who explicitly said "going through on amber ... is not actually an offence") was, and in quoting the legislation that creates the offence, I obviously was too. But I wasn't and it is hard to see how anyone might think I was. If you were talking about something else you might have said so. It was absolutely clear what my question meant. I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the law says and what it means. You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be legal or not. In exactly the same way and to the same extent, they cannot know in advance whether their conduct will be judged as careless driving or dangerous driving. Yet most of us seem to get along most of the time. Yeeesss... but most of us will pass sets of traffic lights rather more often than we encounter overtly dangerous situations. Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready case-law on the topic. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. . cupra wrote: "David Hansen" wrote in message ... [snip] Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a pretence that they are optional. I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little hypocritical. And now he'll have a hissy fit and accuse you of "abusing" him which is the other Hansen tactic for trying to escape the hole that he has dug. Yep, sounds about right! |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready case-law on the topic. There is. Passing through the lights once they've gone red is an absolute offence. Passing through the lights at amber is not an offence, but is strongly discouraged by "best practice", as codified in the Highway Code. What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Ttoommy wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message . .. 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. Good Point OK which one of you tw4ts is pretending to be Filth today ;-) You tell us, or is it me? -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
JNugent : Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them is a very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready case-law on the topic. There is. Passing through the lights once they've gone red is an absolute offence. Passing through the lights at amber is not an offence, but is strongly discouraged by "best practice", as codified in the Highway Code. What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by judges, usually on appeal. The other problem is that you did not re-phrase the "amber phase" part of the law in full. It contains a legal caveat to the effect that one may pass at amber, but only if it would be dangerous to stop. I don't believe that the full meaning of that has ever been properly explained. If it really means that you can treat amber like green, fair enough. But what if it doesn't? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
Nice try. Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate. Beign pedantic about this, the meaning of "nice try" is actually "exact shot" as in "hit the target dead centre". Hansen seems to be a Humpty Dumpty in his use of language in this respect as he is when it comes to "Hansen gets to define how the European parliament works." |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by judges, usually on appeal. So please feel free to set such legal precedent. I look forward to reading the transcript of your appeal against a £60 FPN when you take it all the way to the Law Lords. Don't forget to let us know how much the final bill is, including the costs awarded against you as well as all your legal fees and incidental costs. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
JNugent : What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by judges, usually on appeal. So please feel free to set such legal precedent. ??? How could I do that? I look forward to reading the transcript of your appeal against a £60 FPN when you take it all the way to the Law Lords. Don't forget to let us know how much the final bill is, including the costs awarded against you as well as all your legal fees and incidental costs. What's all that about? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by judges, usually on appeal. So please feel free to set such legal precedent. ??? How could I do that? Ah, sorry. I read your post to imply a certain degree of familiarity with basic legal concepts. It's relatively simple. Case law is established by a case setting a legal precedent. There's a clue in the name. In this kind of instance, it'll probably be because it's been taken to a higher court, which probably implies an appeal of a conviction, in order to set a precedent going against the obvious implications of the wording of the law - which is what you seem to be trying to do, if I'm not mistaken? I look forward to reading the transcript of your appeal against a £60 FPN when you take it all the way to the Law Lords. Don't forget to let us know how much the final bill is, including the costs awarded against you as well as all your legal fees and incidental costs. What's all that about? Exactly what it says. You think case law's required to clarify the law. Fine. So please regard it as your duty to use the first opportunity you get to set it. Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law. Calling them a bunch of "jumped-up fascist bullyboys" should help persuade them, especially if you crap in their hats whilst doing so. We'd like to know what the final bill is purely so we can compare it to the cost of paying the FPN, in order to ensure good value has been obtained from your laudably principled stand. Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant pedantry. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian writes:
Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law. If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with? Calling them a bunch of "jumped-up fascist bullyboys" should help persuade them, especially if you crap in their hats whilst doing so. Except maybe a public order offence, but I can't see that being particularly relevant -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
JNugent : What is so ****ing difficult to comprehend about that? Well, for one thing, that is not case-law. Case-law is established by judges, usually on appeal. So please feel free to set such legal precedent. ??? How could I do that? Ah, sorry. I read your post to imply a certain degree of familiarity with basic legal concepts. It's relatively simple. Case law is established by a case setting a legal precedent. There's a clue in the name. In this kind of instance, it'll probably be because it's been taken to a higher court, which probably implies an appeal of a conviction, in order to set a precedent going against the obvious implications of the wording of the law - which is what you seem to be trying to do, if I'm not mistaken? You *are* mistaken. See if you can work out why. I look forward to reading the transcript of your appeal against a £60 FPN when you take it all the way to the Law Lords. Don't forget to let us know how much the final bill is, including the costs awarded against you as well as all your legal fees and incidental costs. What's all that about? Exactly what it says. But since none of it has any basis in reality, what's it all about? You think case law's required to clarify the law. Fine. So please regard it as your duty to use the first opportunity you get to set it. Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law. Calling them a bunch of "jumped-up fascist bullyboys" should help persuade them, especially if you crap in their hats whilst doing so. We'd like to know what the final bill is purely so we can compare it to the cost of paying the FPN, in order to ensure good value has been obtained from your laudably principled stand. Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant pedantry. Bad day at the office? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law. If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with? I'm not the one trying to legally clarify whether it is or not. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
JNugent gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Alternatively, you could regard it as a ****-take of your arrogant pedantry. Bad day at the office? Not at all. A little light entertainment at your expense. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
Daniel Barlow : Next lights you see that are in the process of changing, whilst you've got a police car following you, feel free to just blat through as they're very nicely orange. Don't forget to ask the nice officers to make sure they charge you, because you want to clarify the law. If, as you claimed earlier, going through the lights on amber is not an offence, what exactly do you expect them to charge him with? I'm not the one trying to legally clarify whether it is or not. And neither are any of us. I asked whether there was any legal definition of: "You may go on [at amber] only if ... you ... are so close to [the stop line] that to pull up might cause an accident". |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In article , says...
I see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path. You mean if an artic goes in a straight line the trailer will too?? My god, these revelations just never stop, I need to go sit down... What a ****ing moron. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 1:15*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote: What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, What your walnut sized brain seems to fail to comprehend is that you are making your own rules. I'm all for anarchy, which is what you seem to want. What you fail to realise is that in an anarchy *everyone* is a policeman and those who try to unilaterally impose their rules on society will be resisted by a significant number. I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. It's not "think" sonny. Yes, I guessing thinking wouldn't be your strong point. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for that walnut-sized cat brain you have. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
I guessing Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy! |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In message , Ttoommy
writes "Steve Firth" wrote in message . .. Adrian wrote: Careful, you'll fuel Toomtard's "Steve Firth Collective" fantasies. snip shaite As I keep saying but it appears NOT to sink in Gizmo = Filth Also i asked the question about all the new posters that appearedfor just a day or so appeared also to know ALL about Doug, his history with Brians accusations and Filths vomit and would soon disappear after slating Doug DO YOU Adrian think -its really one person = one name=one poster here? If its yes then Mr Adrain Gullible must stop handing your dosh over to all those Nigerian solicitors and money launderers I notice that Mr Firth has correctly predicted when the rubbish would start again, they'll have been serving for about 75 minutes, just enough to get well oiled. -- Clive |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 16, 1:04*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote: I guessing Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy! ****, typo! |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote: Marz wrote: I guessing Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha it's Toomy! ****, typo! To be fair, there have been other similarities. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:25:29AM -0500, wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: very few car drivers jump red lights, fewer do it deliberately, and fewer still do it regularly. Which is really rather different from cyclists, at least in London. You are joking! I will concede that cyclists ignore lights more often than motorists do but otherwise you are deluded. Would care to join me for an exciting evening of traffic counting? I'll take you to a junction in Cambridge I used to pass every day to and from work and now pass on my way to my Daughter's or Tesco's and you'll see a red light jumping motorist every day I pass it. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 16 Apr 2009 15:07:45 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:- Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate. In this case it didn't introduce any unknown facts into the debate, at least as far as I was concerned. -- 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 |
| 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