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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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