Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other 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!

On Apr 14, 7:38*pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Boris's latest mad-cap idea:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...7998687.stmand other 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.

"Graculus" wrote in message
...

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.

Cyclists have been running red lights for years. This'll just mean they'll
be allowed to in law, so they won't have to snarl and yell at pedestrians
who attempt to cross the road when the green man is showing.

Ian

"Graculus" wrote in message
...
Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other 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!

As "barmy" as the entire US road system where traffic can legally turn right
on a red.

It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists, the usual
whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed off when they
don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

MIG wrote:

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.

There is a traffic lighted junction I use regularly to turn left. If I am in
the car I just go on green. If I am on the bike I check to the right then go
(on green).

It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

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. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!
--
Robin

neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

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. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

Probably not a bad idea.

If they got all the cyclists off the pavements and onto the roads, the roads
would be safer for everyone. But then again the motorists would be bitching
that they are being held up by all these cyclists who shouldn't be there...

As my mother used to say, "be careful of what you wish for, because you
might actually get it" :-)

mileburner wrote:
"Graculus" wrote in message
...
Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other 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!

As "barmy" as the entire US road system where traffic can legally turn right
on a red.

It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists, the usual
whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed off when they
don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

Completely correct. Oh, sorry, I mean in the same way that the demented
cnuts on bikes who get ****ed off when they don't have equal rights to
motorists need to get a car and STFU, of course...

neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

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. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!

I suggested something similar a few months ago, and the whinging
*******s in URC insisted that I was being 'disproportionate'. Odd,
innit, that this disproportion thing only applies to car drivers
exposing cyclists to harm, and not to cyclists exposing pedestrians to
the same

"thaksin" wrote in message
...
neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

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. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!

I suggested something similar a few months ago, and the whinging *******s
in URC insisted that I was being 'disproportionate'. Odd, innit, that this
disproportion thing only applies to car drivers exposing cyclists to harm,
and not to cyclists exposing pedestrians to the same

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.