 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:37:13 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
Do you have a reliable and trustworthy source (i.e. a police or VOSA
press release _not_ a cycling activist newspaper or forum post) for that?
--
Matt B
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Doug <...@riseup.net
On 16 July, 17:26, spindrift <...@hotmail.comOne small problem, most cops, magistrates, judges and members of
juries are drivers.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:20:25 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
So are most of the posters to this NG. Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Doug <...@riseup.net
On 16 July, 18:20, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.ukBias in favour of motorists leading to derisory punishments for crimes
committed by them. I forgot to include MPs who make the laws.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:50:36 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
If you tell a lie enough times....
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:01:11 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
So how do you account for the views of those posters to this NG who are
motorists but are in favour of cyclists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Doug <...@riseup.net
On 17 July, 08:01, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.ukAs an ex-motorist I tend to take the view that motoring is addictive,
stressful, laziness-promoting, polluting and highly dangerous and
inconveniencing to others, which gives rise to what is best described
in a nutshell as 'road rage'. So from such a warped standpoint an
active motorist will tend to lean more in favour of motorists than
cyclists.
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:34:34 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Yes, we see road rage demonstrated here frequently.
Why not take a pill or pour a glass of red, relax and calm down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:33:31 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
So you are the only person posting to this NG who is in favour of cycling,
Doug?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:51:47 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Are you going to bring back your concept of "real cyclists" again, you
know "you can't be a real cyclist if you use a car"
Please tell me why somebody can't use a car as well as a bike?
Or indeed a bus, tram, train, motorcycle, roller skates, walk?
(I know there are other forms of transport)
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:26 pm, spindrift <...@hotmail.com
In other words: "Police shouldn't be enforcing laws against cyclists,
they should be enforcing laws against motorists, purely because I hate
motorists and not cyclists".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:07:43 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Well said.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT), Doug <...@riseup.net
On 16 July, 18:52, Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.comNope. Police should enforce the same laws for everyone, not special
laws for special people, like drivers.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:51:41 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
So you have no problem with enforcing laws about RLJ's?
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:38:53 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <...@gmail.com
On 17 July, 07:51, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Personally I would like to see all RLJing prosecuted - whether it is
done by motorists, lorry drivers, motor cyclists, or cyclists.
Rudi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:27:40 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
But you'd stop all cars entering London.
Bod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:29:55 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Bod" <...@mid.individual.net...
That would eliminate congestion and improve air quality somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:35:09 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
What! think about the stink from all those sweaty cyclists!
Bod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:45:56 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
At least you'd be able to smell it.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
Some interesting stuff, maybe the reason for ASL breaches is so low is
because, errr, the Met don't enforce the law!
At least they apologised for the ward Consultation:
Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting
about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police.
Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the
2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at
least one way. Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small
random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences
range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5
cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while
driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator
license (1 case).
In some cases the drivers were given a warning and in other cases
there was a more formal police follow up. No information was given on
convictions following this operation. Inspector Aspinall said that the
London construction vehicle market (skips, cement mixers, construction
materials haulage) was very tight and competitive. Shady operators
with dubious standards and legality exerted a downward pressure on
market prices and that was forcing even the more responsible companies
to cut corners in order to win tenders.
Some companies were even factoring into their costs the inevitability
of a certain number of fines for breaches of the law.
I found this revelation shocking.
On Advance Stop Lines (the green boxes at junctions), the police were
calling for a change in the law to allow for these to be enforced by
camera. As things stand, the City of London police is the only police
force that is actually enforcing the law on ASLs (no explanation was
given for why the Metropolitan Police was not). The fine is £60 plus 3
points on the driver’s license.
City Police and TFL were also calling for a change to the law on ASLs
that would allow cyclists to enter ASLs in any way they choose. As
things stand, if a cyclist enters an ASL other than via a feeder lane
on the left, they are officially breaking the law. As we know, feeder
lanes on the left are terribly dangerous in that they lure cyclists
along the inside of stationery traffic, and filtering in this way is a
major contributory factor towards collisions involving motor vehicles
turning left into the path of cyclists.
Most of the recent lorry-cyclist fatalities have been caused by a
lorry turning left and crushing the cyclist.
One member of the audience picked up on a recent Police consultation
with local people about various forms of anti-social behaviour, which
appeared to be encouraging respondents to complain about reckless
cyclists. The Police fully admitted the flaws in the consultation and
expressed regret for what they said was a sloppy piece of work. The
impression was given that a handful of ‘important people’ in the upper
echelons of the City of London were very hostile to cyclists and that
this may account for some erratic decisions by the City.
http://thebikeshow.net/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:55:51 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
I asked ’statto’ Sergeant Alan Rickwood about this after the
presentation and he said for all the collisions involving cyclists
reported to the (CoL) police, 25% were the attributable to an error
made by the cyclist, and the rest were the fault of other road users.
Ibid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:29 pm, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
Riiight. So you don't hate motorists, you just want them all to be
banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:48:16 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
Just pointing out some of the advantages of Bod's suggestion - read into it
what you choose :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:27 pm, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
No, I wouldn't, but congratulations on posting the irrelevant straw
man so early, well done.
In the whole of London, in all circumstances (including drunk peds
wandering into the road), cyclists were involved in incidents that
injured 331 people last year.
There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to
collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles.
I just don't get why so much of police resources is devoted to a
relatively trivial problem.
Look at the CoL police Ward Consultation:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/citypolice/forms/wardpolicingconsultation_b.aspx
"Dangerous cyclists" listed first?
Above drunkenness?
Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all violent assaults. There were
174,000 violent assaults in London last year. makes no sense to me.
Soft policing.
Box ticking.
Yes, numpties on bikes who RLJ are annoying and suicidal.
Drivers who RLJ are homicidal.
How many drivers this week will get a fine for encroaching an ASL?
Parking in a mandatory cycle lane?
Get a FPN for using a mobile?
The City Of London is the most dangerous place to cycle in England,
and CoL cops spunk their resources on this, a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:36 pm, spindrift <...@hotmail.com
He was bang on. You hate motorists. It couldn't be more obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:32:29 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-16, spindrift <...@hotmail.com[...]
How many times more motor vehicles than pedal cycles were there on the
roads of London last year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:07:41 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 9:32 pm, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
About four times as many, in the CoL.
Is that seriously an excuse to ignore lethal behaviour by drivers?
"There's more of us"?
The cops are focusing on a trivial, technical breach of the law by
cyclists, and ignoring lethal defects in vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:27:38 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-16, spindrift <...@hotmail.com
Did I say that? It's just better to compare injuries caused per driver
with injuries caused per cyclist.
Otherwise you might conclude that the safest way to travel through CoL
is on a rocket since there were no injuries caused to peds by rockets
in that area at all last year.
I'm sure they bust vehicle drivers at least 101 times more often. It's
just the occasional news-grabbing "clampdown" on RLJing.
Basically plod leaves you alone on a bike except for the occasional
telling-off which is as it should be.
Fight proposals for bicycle number-plates or licenses tooth and nail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:17:02 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
RCGB 2007 shows that in 2007 there were 2,683 injury accidents which had
"vehicle defects" as a contributory factor and 35,559 which had
"injudicious action" (such as disobeying signs and signals and "Cyclist
entering road from pavement") as a factor.
Why do you think that the police should concentrate more on the less
significant factor???
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:06:14 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
So red light jumping is just a technical breach of the law, must be the
same for motorists then.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 16 July, 23:06, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Red light jumping is wrong whoever does it, and the 'confiscate and
crush the vehicle' solution works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:29:28 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
And a session of 'waterboarding'?
Bod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:22:51 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-16, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
No, it's much more dangerous in a car. RLJing on a bike is similar in
triviality and technicality to speeding in a car-- everyone does it
(present company excepted of course) where it's reasonably safe.
Obviously you can speed like a total lunatic or jump red lights like a
courier, but that's different, and not what most drivers or cyclists do.
Or you can bleat about all those children bouncing off the windscreen
who would have lived to fight another day at 20mph, or call RLJing
"suicidal" or "homicidal". The two offences are very much on a par.
When about to hoot your horn at an RLJing cyclist ask yourself have you
never broken a speed limit, and also, if you're such a stickler for the
highway code, is that really an appropriate use of the horn? And, which
is safer really, staying calm or driving under the influence of
self-righteous road rage?
Motorists do get milked for trivial offences more than cyclists because
of the ease of automated enforcement, and because of the current
political climate (you get away with a certain amount of car-hating).
Fight that for sure, but don't take it out on cyclists. Get on a bike
yourself and enjoy the freedom while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT), francis <...@yahoo.com
On 17 July, 09:22, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
Doesn't make it right, but I take your point.
Cyclist bleat about speeding cars, motorist bleat about RLJ cyclists,
Most know that the others are reasonable most of the time.
Generally I would agree with that.
I don't know about you, but seeing a RLJ does not send me into road
rage, allthough if the little shit caused me to hit a lampost it might
be different.
Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
And possibly homicidal too, or at least a danger to others. I was very nearly
t-boned by an RLJ on the way home this evening and lucky that the car driver behind
me reacted as quickly as I did when I made an emergency stop. The shit-for-brains
RLJ sailed on blithely, completely unaware of the actual effect on others of his
mindless arrogance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
I don't disagree. they are annoying. But on the scale of the other
problems mentioned, it's trivial. So why the allocation of so much
limited police resources when far worse problems are left un-policed?
For instance, 8 cyclists killed in London this year, and yet the
Metropolitan Police do not even bother to enforce ASLs, although
they've suggested camera enforcement.
I would say that 8 deaths are a symptom of a real problem, cyclists
RLJing seems to be a perceived problem, in road safety injury and
death rates it hardly figures.
From experience I'd say skip, flat bed and scaffolding lorries are the
worst, possibly because they get paid by the load so have an incentive
to cut corners.
We also know that 2 lorries involved in fatal collisions with cyclists
in the last 2 years were missing mirrors.3 Given that there is a new
law on the books obliging all lorries registered since 2000 to fit
more mirrors, and that a failure to see the cyclist by the driver must
have been a factor in all 3 of the deaths mentioned above perhaps the
Mayor ought to be making statements to the effect that the Met Traffic
Unit will be doing a lot more random stops to make sure that these
mirrors are actually fitted?
2 years ago, a local east dulwich man Stephen [Ferguson] was killed
by a lorry while cycling to work on dog kennel hill.
Thanks to a report in the Standard, we know now that the lorry was
owned by a company which supplies the building trade, Hendricks
Lovell; that, like the lorry that killed Lisa Pontecorvo, the lorry
was missing a mirror which might have allowed the driver to see the
cyclist on his left; that the driver had, similar to the driver that
killed Emma Foa, a newspaper open on the seat next to him.
The claim by Mr Ferguson’s widow for compensation has been settled
for what the Standard calls a ‘six figure sum’, thus establishing that
the driver was responsible, wholly or in major part, for his death.
Personally, even leaving aside the question of whether or not the
driver was reading a newspaper whilst in control of a HGV, I find it
extraordinary that the driver was not prosecuted for not having a
mirror.
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/dead-cyclists-widow-wins-compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
the car driver behind me reacted as quickly as I did when I
I would have considered it rather more than 'annoying or 'trivial', as you put it,
if the driver behind had run me down as a result of my being forced into an
emergency stop by a RLJ. That cyclist's actions, and those of many RLJs, are
potentially homicidal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:10:49 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
<...@hotmail.com
The Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police are different
police forces. I think that you will find that the Met Police are
even-handed. They do not target ASL infringements and they do not
target cyclists who jump red lights.
The City of London police are also even-handed. They target both ASL
infringements and cyclists jumping red lights. They have nothing
better to do. Violent crime, shoplifting and burglary are rare in the
square mile: fraud is rife. If they need a presence on the street
they have to be seen to be doing something, and chasing a £10,000,000
bank robber who has committed his crime from a computer terminal is
not very visible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
oh don't be silly! I mean thats common sense....
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:15:05 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 8:10 pm, Tom Crispin
<...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cityoflondonpolice.crimemappe...ity-of-london/
Average violent crime per month- 68.7.
So, injuries involving cyclists, in all circumstances, across the
whole of London are 331.
Violent crime accounts for twice that number in the CoL alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:31:33 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:15:05 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
<...@hotmail.com
Two pub brawls per day in the whole of a police force area is a low
rate of violent crime.
I bet cyclist injuries, requiring treatment by a doctor, far exceed
two per day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 9:31 pm, Tom Crispin
<...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
Yep, sure, it's only 1.2 miles after all.
Many cyclist injuries don't involve another vehicle. Virtually all
deaths do, but the cops don't even prosecute when drivers who have
killed a cyclist are found to have faulty or missing mirrors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:18:57 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 8:15 pm, spindrift <...@hotmail.com
Weirdly, I never had any issue with RLJ cyclists when I’m in the car –
doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I’ve never had one jump the
lights into my path – but they really annoy me when I’m on the bike…
giving us all a bad name.
Like it or not (and I know where the real danger lies on the road)
there is a lot of “public” anger at law breaking cyclists (and there
seem to be strong anti-cycling sentiments high up in the Corporation
Of London) – it seems to me the police are buggered if they do and
buggered if they don’t on this issue, which I think is what you're
saying Tom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:13:11 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:18:57 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
<...@hotmail.com
There seems to be similar sentiments in my locality. Every few months
there seems to be a spate of articles, rants and editorial containing
all negative comments about cycling and cyclists in the local rag.
The latest one was triggered by a petition organised by a schoolchild
to have cycle lanes installed everywhere because it is "too dangerous"
to cycle to school. Then followed all the usual anti-cyclist letters
"all cyclists are RLJ'ers", "All cyclists ride on the pavement" etc.
Then comes the editorial about cyclists not all wearing helmets.
I might write to correct the factual errors (like cyclists not being
allowed in all pedrestrian areas) but I am not sure I am not wasting
my time.
<Groan/
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:19:18 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
That's not really being even handed. One of those offences is technical only
and causes no danger. The other is ignoring red traffic lights.
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:19:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:19:18 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
And I suspect you really do believe that the two are different in that
respect, probably because you've never actually thought about it at
all.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:19:34 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Most traffic light junctions don't have queue-jumping facilities for
cyclists. It is nonsense to pretend that they are dangerous because of that.
Ignoring the queue-jumping facility where it exists* does not make that
junction any more "dangerous" than a normal junction.
So calm down and stop taking nonsense.
[* Something principally done by cyclists, who, sensibly, are rarely seen to
make use of the queue-jump facility. HTH]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:29:20 +0100, Jim Davies <...@madeyoulook.com
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:19:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
Of course: anyone who has an opinion contrary to one of yours
obviously hasn't thought about it.
Jumping a red light quite clearly has a range of possible dangerous
consequences. Crossing the line into an ASL simply isn't in the same
league...the likely consequences are zero and the possible
consequences are nowhere near as severe as with jumping a red.
But because ASL "offences" are specific to the motorists that you so
despise, you and your ilk seek to massively play up the dangers in the
same way that you do with "speeding". Similarly, you seek to play
down the dangers caused by cycling-specific offences, and sometimes
you even make out that the same offence is somehow "OK" when committed
by a cyclist, but deadly when committed by a motorist.
It's yet another transparent, pathetic part of your anti-motorist
campaign, which is obvious to everyone by now despite you still
claiming that it doesn't exist. The fact that so many people believed
that the rants against motorists "forged" in your name really were
from you is yet more evidence of your hatred of (other) car drivers.
Why do you continue to lie about it?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:27:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:29:20 +0100, Jim Davies
<...@madeyoulook.com
Right. and remarkably few cyclists appear to be injured doing it,
which suggests that they don't do it in circumstances where those
dangers apply. And if you think it through, the reason is obvious: a
bus that jumps a red light and comes into conflict with other traffic
will probably be able to simply barge its way through, a cyclist who
does it will probably be seriously injured or killed. So most of the
red light jumping I see (in London, which is the only place I notice
it being a common behaviour) is people moving ahead at junctions which
are completely stalled due to volume of traffic.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Peter Ford <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 9:27 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
A majority of the red light jumping I see is at a certain T-junction
in Cambridge, where there's no good reason not to have a left turn
filter when traffic from the T is emerging, but there isn't one, so
cyclists invent their own. However, a sizeable minority also sail
through that and other lights straight on, which looks rather more
hair-raising
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:13:57 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
A majority of red light jumping I see is vans and cars going for "just one
more through". I was almost T-boned by a van doing this this a while ago,
(my lights had gone to green). Many cyclists set off before the red/amber
stage to avoid the conflict with other traffic behind who often want to race
ahead on green, but they tend to watch what the traffic is doing, rather
than what the lights are doing which enables them to avoid the RLJers coming
the other way.
I tend to obey the lights but also observe for the possibility of RLJers.
Having alsmost been wiped out myself, I can understand why many cyclists
would rather watch out for traffic than simply steam ahead on green.
I also now tend to now ALJ (and even RLJ) if there is a vehicle on my tail
who I suspect is not going to stop. Many of them don't stop and RLJ anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:33:42 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
You could say exactly the same about drivers doing it. The low number there
would be even more remarkable because there are so many more motor vehicles
about.
It still doesn't mean it's right.
And risk of injury to the offender is certainly not the only - or, I would
argue, the main - test of wehether it is right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:37:00 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On 17 July, 10:33, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
No, you couldn't say exactly the same at all:
In London between 2001-05 (the most recent data we have), there were 3
cyclists, 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed in
collisions
where a motorist jumped a red light.
Two cyclists were killed by red light jumping (i.e. fewer than the
number of
cyclists killed by red-light-jumping drivers), while 7 motorcyclists
got
themselves killed the same way.
Jumping a red light on a bike is illegal
and can be dangerous; jumping a red light using a motor vehicle is
just
as illegal but causes a lot more death and injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:09:14 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
[stand by for some dodgy spindrift data... here it comes...]
I think you've let the point pass some way above your head.
JtG said that few cyclists are injured when ignoring red traffic lights. I
observed that one can say the same about drivers (ie, that very few of them
are injured when ignoring red traffic lights). Neither fact makes ignoring
red traffic lights right. The figures you have posted there (whatever their
provenance) therefore have nothing to with either part of the point.
Rubbish. Over the decades, I've seen a fair number of drivers jump red lights
(far more than I'd prefer to have seen). But I've never seen one involved in
a collision as a result of it.
So what you *meant* to say must have been:
"Jumping a red light on a bike is illegal and can be dangerous; jumping a red
light using a motor vehicle is just as illegal and also can be dangerous".
After all, I'm sure you'd want to be even-handed about it.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On 17 July, 11:09, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I've never seen Kylie Minogue's furry front bottom, doesn't mean she
hasn't got one.
Motorists who jump red lights can and do kill.
Unsafe lorries on London's roads have killed three people in the last
year. The driver of the lorry that had no mirrors admitted he had
removed them- an offence. He wasn't even charged.
So, police prioritising naturally being directed toward those who
inflict the most damage and misery should mean more than a measly 12
illegal lorries get removed from our roads.
Instead the cops spend their time ticketing cyclists, I've seen them
do it at the Monument junction as lorries trundle through the red
light completely unbothered by police action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:40:36 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
No. You're alright with the first part of that, but way off with the second part.
The last one I saw definitely didn't kill anyone. Not even himself. It was a
London bus-driver, BTW.
What's that to do with ignoring red traffic lights?
What's that to do with ignoring red traffic lights?
Maybe.
Now and then, perhaps, when there isn't an R in the month and Venus is
aligned with Mars, or something.
And you see, it's dead easy not to get done for cycling through red traffic
lights: just don't do it!
Anecdote.
Never the best debating technique.
Did I ever tell you about the man who subjugated Europe with a fleet of cyclists?
<http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/great.htm>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On 17 July, 11:40, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
You think because you've never seen a motorist jump a red light and
kill someone, it's never happened, ever, anywhere?
Women cyclists are more likely to be killed by lorries than men
because they obey red lights and then wait in drivers' blind spots.
Research by Transport for London, which has been kept secret since
last July, suggests that cyclists who jump red lights may be safer
than those who stick to the law.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393622-details/Male+cyclists+who+j ump+red+lights+'are+safer'/article.do
A mother has told how her cyclist daughter was killed by a driver who
sped through a red light.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435942-details/Cyclist+Charlot te+killed+by+driver+who+jumped+red+light/article.do
Imagine you are pedalling along a one-way, three-lane trunk road in
central London at rush hour. You come to a halt at a set of red
lights, as do the hundreds of agitated, overheated, mobile phone-
distracted drivers behind you. Ahead the road branches into two, but
before it splits it is joined by four new lanes swinging in from the
right.
To get to where you have to go, you – the lone cyclist – need to be in
the centre-left lane. You can’t be sure, but probability dictates
there is at least one tattooed chav of subnormal intelligence in the
queue behind you, three taxi drivers, two articulated lorries, a bendy
bus and five or six Top Gear fans who think now is a good time to make
like the Stig.
Now, here’s the question. Do you: a) wait like a lemon for the lights
to turn green, trusting that no one hits you as the phalanx of traffic
surges forward; b) jump the red light without checking nothing is
coming from the right; c) jump the red light after making sure there
is nothing coming from the right?
If you’re a conventional middle Englander you will have plumped for
“a”. That’s because everyone from middle England always obeys the law
– unless, perhaps, it’s got something to do with a speed limit. If
you’re a reckless chav, on the other hand, you will have gone for “b”.
City cyclists, however, know instinctively that “c” is the way to go.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article1746929.ece
As I have posted elsewhere, a Transport Research Laboratory study in
2007 showed that buses are more likely to jump red lights than
cyclists. After cyclists came black cab drivers. Certainly this
accords with my experience commuting each day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:08:31 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
[ ... ]
[ ... ]
No.
It just doesn't happen every time, or anywhere remotely near every time. In
fact, a rational betting man in full pssession of the form would bet
*against* a fatal accident every time, assuming he could find anyone rash
enough to take the bet.
That doesn't make ignoring red traffic lights right, or big, or clever.
I think there's a bit more to it than that, even if you'd rather pretend that
that's all there is to it.
Oh, don't be so bloody self-serving.
Yes.
No.
No.
Clear enough?
...given the correct answer.
I'd be surprised if that finding was totally accurate, but London bus-drivers
*do* seem particularly lawless at traffic lights. I suspect that they may get
a private nod and a wink from TaL about that practice.
I'd put cyclists at the top of that list every time, especially in Central
London, where few seem to take any notice at all of traffic lights, hence, I
suspect, the occasional effort put in by the CoL Police. The red-light
jumpers have only themselves to blame. They could easily avoid the hassle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:16:24 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 12:08 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Running red lights? In the course of my 35-minute ride to work I see
at least 20 cars do it, every journey. Driving while using a mobile?
Too many even to count. Blocking box junctions? Every such junction,
without fail. Not bothering to signal? Par for the course. The
difference is that when a cyclist performs any such illegal manoeuvre,
they rarely endanger anyone except themselves; when a driver does it,
they blithely risk other people's lives.
Yet the only time that London drivers will criticise other drivers for
their rubbish driving, it seems, is once they actually get on a bike
themselves and realise how alarming it looks (and yes, I am also a car
driver).
Not that pedestrians are much better: if anything, they're even fuller
of self-righteous anti-cyclist anger than drivers. And while acting as
though you are the road's sole user might be less dangerous on foot
than in a car, it can still be fatal to a cyclist. It never fails to
astonish me how they simply don't look - even when stepping out in
front of a light they can see is turning green. I suppose it's because
they can't hear us. But then if you try to ring your bell, they just
stand startled in the middle of the road. It's safer to take a bet on
which way they're moving and go around them.
Why do people hate cyclists?
Because they "the people" have never cycled on London's streets and
probably never will...
I refuse to join nugent's school of hatred of the class of road user
that is responsible for half a person's death per year, no matter how
"annoying" some road users may be. I even refuse to hate the class of
road user that is responsible for 3,000 deaths per year. That is
absurd - irrational, like basing one's view of an entire class of road
user on abuse by a minority of a pedestrian tunnel's bye laws.
However, I do expect that the law, planning and enforcement
authorities react to a style of driving that kills. The larger a
vehicle, the more powerful and fast, the greater the responsibility of
the person in charge. Cyclists have a higher responsibility than
pedestrians. Motorbikes than cyclists. Cars than motorbikes. Vans than
cars. Lorries, buses and coaches slightly more than vans. Anyone
arguing that those at the bottom of the chain (cyclists and
pedestrians) have as high a level of accountability on the road as
those at the top is not merely a moron, but a po-faced anti-
humanitarian.
Those who "hate" abstract individuals on the roads are the biggest
part of the problem, as they condone preventable death and celebrate
and encourage the triumph of the strong and powerful over the weak on
the roads, no matter how lawfully they use those roads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:41:47 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
How often to you see a motorist arrive behind the queue waiting for a
red light, pass the queue and jump the light?
How often do you see a motorist arrive at a red light, slow down, check
that it will be safe to proceed, then jump the light?
I suspect that what you see are those who arrive as or just after the
light changes, and knowing that there will be a long all-red phase
(nothing on the junction from any direction as there seems to be almost
everywhere now) know that they'll meet nothing if they cross it.
Not actually illegal though, unless hand-held for some weird reason.
Which, of course, isn't necessarily illegal.
Yes, but would you trust their signal if they were giving one anyway?
You think that drivers don't care for the safety of those around them?
You've never seen or heard one driver complaining about the standard of
driving of another?
Pedestrians can do no wrong.
Ah, do I detect a trace of prejudice creeping in here? Cyclists
breaking the rules endanger only themselves. Motorists breaking the
rules endanger cyclists. Pedestrians breaking the rules endanger
cyclists. Hmm.
You should always stop or wait and give way to them.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:57:08 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
And how do these two scenarios differ, exactly? In both cases they're
an illegal manoeuvre: in both cases the person responsible believes they
are nevertheless safe.
The only obvious difference I can see is that in the first case at least
they've slowed down to check if something's coming: in the second case
they're more likely to have speeded up.
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:05:10 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
The difference is indeed very subtle.
Absolutely.
Agreed, but there is another, more subtle, difference.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:23:22 -0700 (PDT), francis <...@yahoo.com
On 17 July, 12:16, spindrift <...@hotmail.comI have not noticed that many in my daily drive round South London
Agreed, even some cyclists do it.
Not every box junction.
Agreed, but cyclist do the same.
They often do affect & endanger others, perhaps you should consider
the chaos they often leave behind.
I, as will many criticise bad road use by all road users (I of course
am perfect)
.
Very often justified
Be fair they do it to cars as well. I saw one today just walk out into
the road in front of a Daimler (this one had two decks & was painted a
beautiful shade of red)
More likely it's because you only remember the twats, and group all
cyclists togather.
Would it not be better if everybody actedd in a reasonable manner &
respected everybody else (I know, I can but wish)
Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:13:58 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
Seen loads and loads on telly - those 'look at the twat' type programs.
Seen a few in real life, too.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:18:12 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Oh, it happens, I've no doubt.
Just not every time, which means that "RLJing car-drivers can and do kill"
simply isn't accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 12:18 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Road casualty figures from 2005 show that eight people were killed and
201 people were seriously injured after a vehicle failed to stop at a
red light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:29:21 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Just rein in your rhetoric and compose more accurately.
You never know, if you concentrated a little more, it might be possible for
more people to agree with you.
Your wilder flights of fancy (a large proportion of your attempts at making a
point, unfortunately) are simply not supportable when read properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:32:53 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 12:29 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I said drivers who RLJ can and do kill.
The figures confirm this. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but remember
what I said about making up argument's nobody's made.
I didn't say RLJing always results in a death.
I said drivers who RLJ can and do kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:26:10 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
It's as accurate as "mains electricity can and does kill". I
don't beleiev it was ever in contention that they kill *every single
time*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:34:32 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
You're right.
It *is* as [in]accurate as "mains electricity can and does kill".
Except in (thankfully) rare instances, mains electricity doesn't. Not even
when the victim gets a 240v shock (of which I've had a few in my time - I'm
still here).
So we're no further forward.
Do we *have* to go through the whole boring rigmarole of trying to find some
other well-known phrase in Ebnghlish which, looked at from the right
direction and with a following wind of a certain speed, might indicate that
spindrift might not have been quite so entirely wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:26:33 +0100, Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
I can't even blame your misinterpretation of this on semantic pedantry,
since there is absolutely nothing in Spindrift's phrase that would every
suggest that every RLJing driver occurence ends in a death. I can quite
easily write "I can and do eat apples". At the moment I am not eating
an apple, but the statement is still accurate. Actually, the last meal
I ate (around 20 minutes ago) did not have an apple in it; I was eating,
but not eating an apple. However, the phrase "I can and do eat apples"
is still accurate. I could qualify it with "I can and, at times, do eat
apples", but only the most obviously and deliberately obstinate would
actually take the meaning as being that I either am always eating
apples, or that every time I eat I eat an apple.
Colin
--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:34:19 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
A completely different sort of sentence. You aren't plural for a start.
But I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of nonsense to
surface. Spindrift used his peculiar phraseology deliberately; the
"accidental" meaning was no accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:51:13 +0100, Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
"My family and I can and do eat apples."
The "accidental" meaning - I presume being the meaning that you and
no-one else assumed. Is this some sort of psychic ability that you
have, to not only read into a statement a meaning that no-one else read,
but also to know that the writer meant for you to read that meaning.
You mentioned nonsense above - how right you are.
Colin
--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:22:57 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I *was* right to describe your intervention (which was drearily inevitable)
in those terms, even before you made it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:27 +0100, Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
You made a rather odd interpretation of a phrase that most other people
would find entirely clear. The fact that someone (and I'm not the only
one) pointed it out to you is perhaps inevitable. The fact that you
find it dreary may be rememdied by you not making such strange
interpretations of common usage language in the future.
--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT), francis <...@yahoo.com
On 17 July, 09:27, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.netwrote:
What about the RLJ who causes other road users to take avoiding
action, this action may end up being dangerous.
Even worse are the RLJs at pedestrian crossings who think it ok to
just swerve around the pedestrians crossing.
Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:43:46 +0100, Rob Morley <...@ntlworld.com
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
francis <...@yahoo.com
Even worse because they cause so many serious casualties?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:06:29 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
Rob Morley <...@ntlworld.com
It would be something of a skewed value system that considers it worse
to swerve around other people than to cause *them* to get out of the
way, but I expect that wasn't what francis was trying to say. My guess
is he's suggesting that all other things being equal it's worse for an
RLJing cyclist to be in potential conflict situations with unprotected
pedestrians than with motor vehicle users - if so, then I would agree.
In the event of a collision most vehicle users will get off without
injury but the consequences to a ped could be serious or even fatal.
Bloody rude.
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:50:50 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
I would add that I have only very rarely seen a motorist driving over a
pedestrian crossing when pedestrians are already crossing during their
phase of the lights, I often see cyclists doing this especially in the
centre of London.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:29:48 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 6:50 pm, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Can you understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, and the
fact that you haven't seen it happen is no more proof that it doesn't
happen than my Kylie analogy:
In the first half of last year, 533 people were killed or injured on
zebra crossings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/14/newsid_3044000/3044335 .stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:17:19 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
How many zebra crossing are traffic light controlled?
Or to put it another way *read the post*
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:56:21 +0100, Rob Morley <...@ntlworld.com
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
robert hancy <...@gmail.com
"Last year" being 1960 ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:30:09 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
"Last year" being 1960 given that the article is from 1961.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:35:37 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
In 2007, 9 people were killed and 157 seriously injured on zebra crossings.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:10:09 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Which are, as we all know, controlled by lights.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:22:07 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 10:35 pm, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
Thank god, we've had speed cameras since then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:08:57 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
Which as we all know, didn't arrive until the early 1990s. Funny how
the steady decline in KSIs, seen throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s
stopped in the early 1990s. I wonder if there is a connection.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:46:08 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Are that many zebra crossings left?
I can't think of one within twenty miles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:18:08 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
20 miles of where? There's one on Clerkenwell Rd, halfway up the hill
towards Grays Inn Rd. It's routinely ignored by taxi drivers. There
are several on Marylebone High St. There's one at the end of Pall Mall
just before the left turn onto James St. The famous one outside Abbey
Road Studios is still there. Can't think of any others offhand, but I
think that just means they're not rare enough to be notable.
There's a blue police box outside Liverpool St Station, but I don't
think it still has any innards.
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:59:23 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Are these zebra crossings controlled by lights?
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:20:12 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
They have the usual Belisha beacon things, as far as I can remember.
That's a strange question, though, if you don't mind my saying so - is
there such a thing as a light-controlled zebra crossing? Perhaps that's
why JNugent never sees them he's expecting them to have traffic lights
attached.
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:29:05 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Perhaps if I quote the original comment it would help.
"I would add that I have only very rarely seen a motorist driving over a
pedestrian crossing when pedestrians are already crossing during their
phase of the lights, I often see cyclists doing this especially in the
centre of London. "
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:27:42 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
You don't get out much, do you?
That or your specs have special car filters.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:42:32 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Oh I get out quite a lot, & my specs are perfectly normal (and new)
If I did not get out much I would not see cyclists doing this in London.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:32:46 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
I haven't seen any car drivers do that either,but I too have seen plenty
of cyclists do it.
Bod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:14:13 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 18, 9:32 am, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
KYLIE MINOGUE'S FURRY FRONT BOTTOM!!
(Never seen it. Pretty sure she's got one)
In the past ten years, more than 5000 pedestrians have been injured on
zebra crossings
Zebra crossing road deaths treble
The number of people killed on zebra crossings in Britain trebled last
year, it has emerged.
Government figures have shown that nine people were killed on zebra
crossings in 2007 compared to only three in the previous year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-treble.h tml
In the UK a motorist face a £60 fine and three points on his or her
driving licence.
However in Italy, for example, the fine is anywhere from £111 to £443,
while in Belgium the maximum fine can reach more than £2,000.
And the rising death toll on zebra crossings masks greater fears that
their disappearance from Britain's high streets is leading to the
country having one of the worst pedestrian safety records in the EU.
A study examining 10 countries earlier this year found that Britain
had the third highest rate of fatalities, when the size of the
population was taken into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:22:49 +0100, "Phone Box" <...@ntlworld.com
You should be so lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:41:48 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 18, 11:22 am, "Phone Box"
<...@ntlworld.com
I can't get it out of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:01:43 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Who was talking about zebra crossings, quote "pedestrian crossing when
pedestrians are already crossing during
their phase of the lights"
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:15:06 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 18, 12:01 pm, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Yebbut, nobbut, yebbut, THAT'S DIFFERENT!!
Come off it Puff, you claimed that cos you don't see drivers ignore
crossings it never happens. I refer you to Ms Minogue's hedgehog hit
by a spade.
There's a notorious light-controlled crossing south of St Paul's, on
the way to the wibbly wobbly bridge where drivers routinely flout the
red light. This is the nearest crossing to St Paul's school, and it
doesn't benefit the drivers one jot, they accelerate through red to
join the jam east bound!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:21:30 +0100, Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
But are they copying the cyclists R/L Jumping though? :-)
Bod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:21:29 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
Bod <...@tiscali.co.uk
Why, would it make everything OK if they were?
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:46:24 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
This really is a waste of time. Everybody with a pair of eyes, a brain and
sufficient exposure to the area knows that cyclists in Central London are -
for the most part - a lawless lot. The City of London Police seem to be of
similar opinion. They also know that driving along the footway in a motor
vehicle is a rare offence - so rare that most people have never seen it
happen, though the offence of failing to give way to a pedestrian on a
crossing, is, regrettably, a little more common. The related offence of
skimming the the cusp of the amber and red phases of the traffc lights
(whether at a crossing or a junction) is also far too common.
But these fade into total insignificance when compared to the number of times
these offences - and worse, in the case of pedestrian crossings and trffic
light junctions - are committed by cyclists.
Yet, whenever this topic is brought up here, the Militant Caucus steadfastly
insists that black is white, that hot is cold, that fair is foul and foul is
fair. In other words, they are in complete denial about the utter lawlessness
of the Central London cyclist, and this is so whether they themselves are
frequently in London or more usually confined to the environs of Auchtermuchty.
One has to ask oneself whether the City of London Police find it necessary to
have these occasional crackdowns on cyclists:
(a) because cyclists in The City are the very model of the modern good
citizen and would never dream of doing anything unlawful with their bikes, or
(b) because cyclists in The City are as described in my first paragraph.
If it were (a), the crackdowns would seem to be misplaced.
But *is* it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I must live in a London set in a parallel universe as I commmute by bicycle in
central London every day and have yet to see the mythical 'sensible RLJ' but I do
see loads of arrogant fools on bicycles blithely ignoring red lights all along my
commute every day, by which I mean cyclists who, upon reaching a red light,
continue through as if it did not apply to them.
As a mature cyclist who doesn't own a motor vehicle I don't understand why this
subject induces people to produce so much fanciful nonsense. It's quite simple.
Wheeled road vehicles are required by law to stop on a red light. We don't get to
choose which laws we wish to obey, and if there is a parallel universe where we can,
why would it apply to cyclists and not to motorists as well?
All these fanciful justifications for law-breaking are self-serving bullshit and I
am astounded that they are proposed by people who appear to be adults rather than
children who one expects to try it on with excuses on the level of 'the dog ate my
homework'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:19:17 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-17, Terry <...@dsl.pipex.com
That's patently false. Of course we get to choose which laws we obey! If
we didn't there would be no need for police, courts or jails.
Most reasonable people follow their own moral conscience first and the
law second. Where they are aware of a conflict between these two, they
start to weigh the probability and consequences of getting caught.
Many cyclists do feel it is acceptably safe to ride through red lights
under certain circumstances. The chances and consequences of getting
caught are both low, so they do it.
You might not agree with them, but this argument that "it's the law" is
bogus. Have you never broken a law?
A bicycle is smaller and more manoeuvrable. It's often possible to go to
the very front of the junction, into the ASL, then past the stop line at
the far end of the ASL and to have a good look around. If nothing's
coming you can just go and avoid the rush when all the cars start
moving.
It is no more dangerous than jay-walking (which in this country is not
illegal anyway), is more convenient for everyone than waiting for the
light and holding everyone up, and certainly safer than not filtering to
the front of the queue at all.
You can't normally do any of this in a car because it's far too big and
visibility is insufficient. You would need to drive right out into the
middle of oncoming traffic to be sure the way was clear.
So what would count as a non-fanciful justification for law-breaking in
your book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:14:35 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
So you condone breaking the law & then wonder why people get upset about
your lack on consideration to other people.
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:32:39 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-17, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
But I never run a red light without first carefully considering other
people.
The more interesting question here is how legitimate is it to be
offended by someone else running a red light.
It is possible to be rightly offended by something that doesn't cause
you personally any injury-- I would be offended if I saw someone else
stealing a bike and might even try to stop them, even though it wasn't
my bike.
But it is also possible to be wrongly offended-- for example by the
colour of someone's skin.
So which kind of offended is this? I don't think it is right to be
offended by someone _just_ because they're breaking a law, and I don't
even think that's the real cause here but an excuse.
The other cyclist who shouts at you is never the one coming the other
way (it would be legitimate for him to be offended if you made him
swerve or obstructed him), but always the one waiting behind you at the
lights. He's angry because he's waiting and you're not. He has the sense
of having been queue-jumped, and that's what he's really upset about.
(Ditto motorists, who have plenty of other reasons to be in a bad mood
already-- stuck in traffic, constantly fined, and made to drive over
deliberate obstructions all the time.)
But that is not fair, because _I_ haven't held anyone up. What held the
other cyclist up was own decision to stop at the light and that's his
business. Maybe he is regretting that decision and is really angry with
himself.
Another reason sometimes given is that I'm giving cyclists a bad name.
But I don't think I am (because I don't think there's anything wrong
with what I'm doing), and, anyway, it is not reasonable to expect all
cyclists to act as though they were wearing a uniform and representing
some kind of organization. I'm just riding my bike. Leave me alone. If
you're a policeman and you catch me breaking the law, I'll take the rap.
If not, mind your own business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
<rest of Ben's self-serving nonsense snipped
Thanks for that succinct and fitting response.
These boys are so lacking in introspection that they are incapable of understanding
how they treat others with contempt when they invent such patently flawed excuses
for their anti-social behaviours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:42:30 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-18, Terry <...@dsl.pipex.com
So help me out here. What is "anti-social" about going through a red
light on a bike when the road is clear?
If you're so good at introspection, please try to _think_ about the
issue and come up with a decent argument, because I'm not going to be
convinced by spluttering indignation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:40:53 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
So why do you expect everyone else to be convinced by spluttering
self-justification?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@bowser.marioworldwrote:
You know the law. Breaking the law is anti-social. What's to explain?
Go do as you please but spare us your pathetic excuses for anti-social behaviours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:26:12 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
So, as far as you are concerned, as long as the chance of being caught is low
enough, it's OK to commit murder (as long as it fits within your moral
conscience)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
Remember what I said about substituting what people have said with
wild extrapolation?
You're doing it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:52:56 -0500, Ben C <...@spam.eggs
On 2009-07-17, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Yes, practically by definition. But it is against most people's moral
conscience (which, by the way, is a large part of the reason there's a
law against it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:34:29 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Oh.
Not the answer I expected.
You didn't mention (in the passages you have now snipped) anything about
conforming to other peoples' moral consciences rather than your own (not that
I'm personalising it to you in particular - please read "you" as "one").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:13:38 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Or indeed to enter ASLs illegally (with the same proviso). We
established yesterday, did we not, that the mere fact of there being a
law against it doesn't make it *wrong*?
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:47:10 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
It makes it unlawful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:12:37 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
The *uniform* branch, you mean?
No contest: enforcing traffic law. Especially the law concerning traffic
lights. And especially against footway cyclists.
HTH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:20:52 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:12:37 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
So you are in favour of prioritizing offences made by cyclists?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:42:49 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
There is a very good case for doing so in the City of London specifically,
with its very high daily number of the most vulnerable road users: pedestrians.
It isn't as though the uniform branch can do much about (the legend of) white
collar-crtime, fraud and embezzlement. What better job to do (every now and
then) than to protect pedestrians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:09:40 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:42:49 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
As others have told you pedestrians are more at risk from motor
vehicles than cycles so why should enforcement be targeted mainly at
cyclists?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:28:39 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
It is only that for a day, every now and then.
Every other day, it's business as usual, with cyclists doing as they like in
the City - riding along footways, ignoring traffic lights and pedestrian
crossings. Some of them even scream obscenties at any pedestrian who has the
temerity to do something as outrageous as to cross the street when the
traffic lights are red for traffic.
The shock factor on the odd day when the police turn their ttention to the
louts is what causes these hysterics from people like spindrift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:14:15 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:28:39 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Every day I see cars driving on the footways, ignoring traffic lights
and pedestrian crossings. Some even scream obscenities at cyclists
for have the temerity to be using the road. A lot of them have a
mobile phone held to their ear.
Never once have I seen any police trying to stop them.
What about the louts in cars?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:34:56 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Do you really think it's that important to enforce ASL observance by
motor vehicles? They're widely unobserved and unenforced at present,
which suggest that your priorities are at odds with the vast majority
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:21:30 +0100, Keitht <KeithT
It's any white line - not just ASL's
Near me there's a set of lights where the white line is set back to
allow for buses to corner. Most drivers stop half a car over the white
line, some a whole car and the odd as-far-as-possible-without-actually-
crossing-the-road. They look surprised when a bus tries to get round the
corner. The ensuing bickering about who needs to reverse (not a commonly
used gear, it seems) can take several minutes and a lot of horn honking.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:22:57 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
There's a set like that at Lower Hale (Farnham). Endless scope for hours of
harmless fun for grockles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:25:24 -0700 (PDT), francis <...@yahoo.com
On 17 July, 12:21, Keitht <KeithT
Perhaps we should get rid of staggered stop lines, I have often seen
what you describe (Esher High Street is good for that)
Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:47:07 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I think ASLs should be scrapped, as should all cycle lanes. Queue-jumping is
not for the British.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:20:21 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Well, that doesn't really answer the question, as it's not within the
remit of the Police to change the law: that requires an Act of
Parliament, as I'm sure you are aware.
So, given that the ASL is provided for in law, is your opinion that its
observance should be enforced more thoroughly? It is part of the law
concerning traffic lights, which you have expressed a particular wish to
see enforced
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:27:05 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
If it were necessary (not that it is) for the police to be anally even-handed
about it, I suppose they'd have to.
But ASLs are a straight piece of politicised discrimination and not a safety
measure at all. So the police should really concentrate on potentially
dangerous abuse of traffic lights. And I don't doubt that some of them -
perhaps even most of them - enjoy the schadendreude. Many people would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:29:54 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 12:27 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
If you cycled, you'd know why ASLs are a boon for cyclists.
They make cyclists more prominent, they allow them to get away from
the lights before vehicles start overtaking,.
ASLs are designed to encourage and protect cyclists.
Based on Danish research, it is argued that an ASL should have the
general stop line 5 m back from the main traffic signal. The reasoning
is that this puts cyclists clearly into the view of HGV (heavy goods
vehicles) drivers, who have a blind spot up to 4 m directly in front
of the cab. According to an OECD review, ASLs are also advocated as
way of improving pedestrian safety at crossings by increasing the
separation between crossing pedestrians and waiting motor vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:35:43 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Oh, it'd be a boon for lots of people if buses were banned.
Being "a boon" doesn't make a wrong right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
What, do you think, are the disadvantages of ASLs?
Are you simply AGAINST ANYTHING that helps cyclists?
Making the roads safer is not what I'd call "discrimination"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:12:33 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:29:54 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
<...@hotmail.com
I must admit that I am skeptical of ASLs; or rather how one gets into
an ASL. A narrow lane in the gutter is not a great way of doing it,
especially if the lights turn to green before you get all the way
there.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:48:56 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
So what you're saying is that you see no real need for impartial
enforcement of laws if there is no justification apparent to you for
those laws existing? That's a refreshingly honest attitude.
But who decides what's "potentially dangerous" and what's a mere
technical breach? Without recourse to spindrift-style statistics ...
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:19:56 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Thanbk you. The same applies (I would suggest) to the law forcing everyone in
England and Wales to attend a CofE service on Christmas Day.
The police.
I'm happy with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:52:09 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Come off it. You clearly *aren't* happy with letting the police decide
their own priorities, or you wouldn't keep banging on about footway
cycling. Because notwithstanding the occasional clampdown, most of the
time they seem to regard it as not worth their attention.
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:15:03 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I'm fairly happy with the CoL Police priorities, even if not necessarily
happy with all those of the Met and adjacent county and regional forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:19 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Well, the police have an odd idea of prioritising.
RLJing 200 cyclists received FPNs in January alone in London.
RLjing cyclists have killed nobody this year.
The cops have stopped just 12 lorries in London and all failed basic
safety checks.
Lorries have killed 8 cyclists in London this year, I'ne no idea how
many pedestrians they've killed.
Now, given that you think improving safety for cyclists amounts to
"discrimination" against drivers, can you explain the imbalance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:31:00 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Well, that's your view. I think you know how highly it is valued. If you
don't, ask the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:38:41 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:31 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Sorry, I asked if you can explain the imbalance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:44:29 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I think you're mistaking me for the chief officer of the City of London Police.
They're the experts and the ones on the spot. Perhaps you could ask them?
That *would* make more sense, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:44 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
No, I don't think you're in charge of the police, I just asked your
opinion om skewed policing.
CoL cops have a rather odd attitude to cyclists:
http://www.ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/policeclampdown.html
Following complaints from friends, City Police were the remains of a
courier's bike which they had been using to highlight the dangers of
jumping red lights at a road safety display. Seb far from jumping the
lights had been waiting for green when he was crushed by a lorry which
had turned without checking its mirrors. A typical example of the City
Police ignoring the facts to justify their own simple prejudices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:18:57 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
The City of London seems, from reports, to be one of those which takes its
priority setting quite seriously, dealing with the requirements of the public
rather than those of officers to be doing "real police work".
That is bound to be your jaundiced view, in the circumstances.
One crushed car or crushed bike is much like another when it comes to
reminding peoiple not to do silly things which can lead them or others into
danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 3:18 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Seb's crushed bike was used to remind cyclists not to RLJ.
The awful irony being, had Seb RLjd he would still be alive.
Seb was killed near my office, a colleague saw the aftermath.
I was thinking too of the lies told about CoL cops.
The cops I meet in London (on Smith and Wesson bikes, strangely. They
got stiffed on the maintenance contrat I hear) are brilliant, they see
at first hand the crass numptiness of London drivers. But official
policy seems very rum:
http://www.ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/policeclampdown.html
From the data above (City of London figures from 2001-2005 inclusive,
contained in a 2006 report on cycling casualties), it is clear that
even if every cyclist complied with Automatic Traffic Signals ('ATS')
there would at best be a marginal reduction (less than 4%, which is
28% x 16%) in minor collisions involving cyclists. However most
cycling casualties are at junctions, so there may be an increase in
collisions involving cyclists pulling off at the same time as other
vehicles rather than being able to get safely ahead of them. These
collisions are more likely to involve serious injury or death to the
cyclist. This is certainly not to say that "jumping lights=safer" but
that at some particular junctions it can be safer to proceed ahead
carefully when the junction is empty, which is rare during the rush
hour in the City.
Conclusion: the safer cycling campaign cannot lead to a statistically
significant increase in safety for cyclists, let alone road users in
general
City Police issue more Fixed Penalty Notices to cyclists than any
other police force despite being the smallest.
But they have never prosecuted or issued any FPNs to drivers
obstructing cycle lanes or Advanced Stop Lines.
Senior police say it's simply up to the discretion of the officer at
the scene.
We say their discretion is in fact discrimination and it seems they're
going for 'easy pickings' to reach their targets for fining cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:33:43 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Hello, spindrift.
Can you think of any possible explanations for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:28:53 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:19 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Why do you think making the roads safer for cyclists by installing
ASLs is "discrimination"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:37:09 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Because it discriminates (deliberately).
QED.
You could make footways and pedestrian crossings safer for pedestrians by
banning bikes. Perhaps we should do it, if making one group of road-users
safer justifies discrimination.
PS: I note that cyclists rarely use those ASLs. Perhaps most cyclists are
more sensible than the traffic engineers and anti-transport pols think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:45:10 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:37 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
How does improving road safety discriminate?
Who is it discriminating against?
Who suffers when ASLs are installed?
Have you ever used an ASL whilst cycling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:51:09 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Wrong question. Completely the wrong way round. ASLs operate (to the extent
that they operate at all) by discriminating. It's the only function they
have. That's a given.
So it ought to be "How does discrimination improve road safety?"
Then you'd have to justify it from that way round (if possible).
People pushed farther back down the queue, especially the ones who would have
been able to get through the green lights but now don't?
People pushed farther back down the queue, especially the ones who would have
been able to get through the green lights but now don't?
ASls (like bus-lanes and other such concepts) are deliberately designed to
discriminate. It's the way they work (if they work).
Never (the council isn't big on them round here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:11:35 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 1:51 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
So the ability of drivers to get through traffic lights a few (3? 4?)
seconds earlier overrrides the safety considerations of ASLs?
ASLs make cyclists safer, is that of less importance than shaving a
few seconds off a commute time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:20:36 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Hello, spindrift.
ASLs do not make cyclists safer. They are rarely used. Win/win if you can
call an overt attempt at discrimination a "win").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <...@gmail.com
On 17 July, 15:20, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I use ASLs a lot. As do lots of other cyclists round here. We mostly
enter them illegally though :-(. Changing the stupidity about how one
is supposed to enter them would be a good thing. They really help
avoid accidents with motorists turning left.
Rudi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:40:15 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 3:20 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I've already said I am robert hancy and spindrift. I keep getting this
stupid message saying I've exceeded my posting limit!
Many HGVs have a blind spot directly below the cab, ASLs make the
cyclist visible, hence safer. I'd suggest you try using ASLs and see
if you notice an improvement.
Of all the cycle-specific measures available, advanced stop lines
(ASLs) at signalcontrolled junctions are among the most beneficial.
They are also popular withcyclists.
Cyclists also derive benefit from ASLs in the following ways. They;-
Give cyclists a visible and practical advantage at signalised
junctionsand thereby encourage latent and existing cyclists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place cyclists in a safer and more visible location, ahead of traffic
rather than at the blind spot to the left of traffic; this is
especiallyimportant where there are appreciable numbers of HGVs.
Allow cyclists to wait in an area relatively free from exhaust fumes
.Make it easier for right hand turning cyclists to position
themselves inthe best location.
Make pedestrian crossing movements at the junction more visible,safer
and more comfortable by setting back the line of waiting vehicles
If your argument against ASLs is that they delay drivers then we may
as well scrap zebras and traffic lights. Wouldn't make the roads safer
though, which ought to be the primary objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:45:33 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
I didn't see either thing.
I can't. There aren't any round here.
Cyclists don't use them and they're "popular"?
Motorcyclists aren't supposed to use them (though they are the one class of
traffic with a reasonable claim to the facility, since they won't hold you up
be getting in front).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:48:22 -0700 (PDT), robert hancy <...@gmail.com
On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
No, it's not sensible mixing heavy, fast moving PTWs with bikes. And I
honestly don't understand why you oppose a road safety initiative that
you've never used!
For clarity: I support the fining cyclists who while failing to obey
traffic signs etc., put pedestrians in fear of a collision, cause
drivers to take action to avoid crashes, or worse.
Otherwise a verbal warning is sufficient for a technical breach of
the law.
With the limited traffic policing resources available it would make
sense to dedicate more of them to deal with offences committed by
drivers which cause far more serious problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:01:27 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
A pedestrian crossing *is* a form of discrimination against vehicle
users. Presumably you would justify it on safety grounds?
As a matter of curiosity, when you approach a queue of traffic while
walking down the road, do you wait in line behind it or do you use the
footway to jump the queue?
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:16:22 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
?
I'm allowed to do that.
Cyclists aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:27:46 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Is that a "yes"? Is that a "yes" from the man who earlier today
recommended the removal of all cycle lanes because they allow cycle
users legally[*] to do the same thing, on the grounds that queue-jumping
is "un-British"? Do you not think that's a trifle inconsistent?
-dan
[*] as does filtering, but let's focus on one thing at a time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:37:42 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
The footway is not part of the carriageway.
PS: I shouldn't have risen to the bait and continued the personalisation that
you introduced. I ought to have said that pedestrians are allowed to
"overtake" traffic by using the footway and that traffic is allowed to
"overtake" pedestrians by using the carriageway. Those parts of the highway
are separate and the concept of either stream "overtaking" the other is spurious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:57:44 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
(Aside: pedestrians are in fact allowed to overtake vehicles using any part of
the roadway they feel like. Some roads don't even have footways)
If I were to generalise this slightly, I could say that different types
of road user are permitted (and indeed expected) to pass one another
using parts of the roadway assigned for their use. Can you, then, think
of any good reason that cyclists in a part of the roadway reserved for
their use should *not* be permitted to overtake slower-moving vehicles
in an adjacent lane?
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:13:35 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Oh yes, easily.
If this reserved roadway were separately provided (and preferably separately
paid-for), there would indeed be no problem. But it isn't. It is part of the
carriageway.
The system you describe is one which applies to off-road cycle-paths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:24:47 +0100, Daniel Barlow <...@telent.net
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
The implied question which you seem to have missed is "well, what is it
then?" Let me ask it explicitly, for the avoidance of doubt: "Please
give me a good reason that cyclists in a part of the roadway reserved
for their use should *not* be permitted to overtake slower-moving
vehicles in an adjacent lane"
-dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:59:43 +0100, Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
So if you're a pedestrian on a road where there is no footway, and
there's a queue of stationary traffic, do you walk past or stay in the
queue until the traffic moves on?
And cycles are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using a cycle lane - and
this seems to make you want to get rid of cycle lanes. Should we not,
by the same logic, get rid of footways - or even the carriageway.
Strange that there are legal ways of letting cars, cycles and
pedestrians pass each other as necessary, and there is only one that you
would like taken away on the grounds that it is "un-British".
--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:15:18 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Only one?
I don't think so.
I am against all queue-jumping devices (including so-called bus-lanes) for
precisely the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:26:56 +0100, Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
Overtaking lanes on motorways?
--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:57:48 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Are they for use in jumping queues?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:59:03 +0100, "Brimstone" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Obviously, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:37:37 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Indeed
The problem is there are probably more cyclist RLJ in the CoL than
elsewhere, should we ignore them?
I don't disbelieve you, but your source is?
As above.
Very true, but I also see at least a couple of cyclist on mobiles every
day (to be fair one is always the same bloke)
--
You don't want to be mayor, you wont be able to fiddle your expenses now.
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:39:22 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
It was European-wide:
https://www.tispol.org/node/4183
TISPOL safety campaign takes more than 2,000 trucks off the road
A recent week-long safety enforcement campaign on truck drivers across
Europe has led to more than 2,000 prohibitions to continue driving as
well as more than 11,000 contraventions of drivers’ hours regulations,
nearly 10,000 speeding penalties, 282 alcohol offences and 18 drug
offences.
The initiative saw police across 21 countries carrying out a wide
range of safety inspections that focused on speeding, alcohol, drugs,
seatbelt use, tachograph infringements, excess weight, dangerous
loading and document offences.
A total of 147,507 vehicles were stopped and 38,564 offences were
reported.
So London had one of the worst records for illegal lorries on our
roads. Across Europe more than a quarter of lorries were breaking the
law.
In London, it was every single one of the vehicles stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:46:24 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
Yes. That article doesn't mention the London findings you mentioned
though does it.
I'll ask for a third time in this thread, in case you missed it the
first two times:
Do you have a reliable and trustworthy source (i.e. a police or VOSA
press release _not_ a cycling activist newspaper or forum post) for that
[the London claim]?
It'd be very strange, assuming that it is actually true, if it wasn't
reported in the main-stream UK media or on the City of London Police
website or on the TfL, VOSA or TISPOL websites - wouldn't it?
Can you find any mention of it anywhere other than those derived from this:
<http://thebikeshow.net/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum/
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
A City of London road casualty report from 2007 showed that cyclists
jumping red lights did not feature in the top five causes of
casualties in the City.
Careless driving by lorry and car drivers is a much more serious issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:03:37 +0100, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
So we should just ignore them then.
Have you any reliable figures for cyclist RLJ's?
--
Tony Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On 16 July, 23:03, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
Figures released by Transport for London yesterday, covering the years
2001-05, show that a pedestrian in London is over 100 times more
likely to be injured in collision with a motor vehicle than a cycle.
During that period there has been no upward trend in the number of
London pedestrians being injured in collision with cycles, despite a
72% increase in cycle use on London’s main roads.
The figures show that, in London during the period 2001-05:
There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to
collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles (there were
34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331
involving cycles).
Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious
pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious
injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).
534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles,
compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle. That one
fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a
pedestrian crossing point.
Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries
arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities.
These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to
1.
The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to
collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001,
and 69 in 2005.
In the meantime, the figure went down, up and back down again, showing
no clear overall trend.
This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.
On average just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a
third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop
Lines” (cycle boxes at traffic lights).
So the cops waste their limited resources in a futile attempt at DOING
SOMETHING that isn't that important, doesn't cause anything like the
injuries caused by other road users and serves as a box-ticking
exercise- even if no FPN is issued the cops treat it as a detected
crime,bumps up their figures you see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:45:32 -0700 (PDT), spindrift <...@hotmail.com
On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, Tony Dragon <...@btinternet.com
City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which
is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.
On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police.
Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way
Repeat:
a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London.
The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases),
mechanical breaches (5 cases),
driver hours breaches (5 cases),
mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases)
and no operator license (1 case).
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/boris-left-at-the-lights
It estimated that in parts of the capital, particularly towards east
London, up to one in 10 motorists were driving illegally.
Green Assembly member Jenny Jones said: "The large and growing number
of illegal drivers is worrying for all us; other drivers, cyclists and
pedestrians. It is a real pain if you have a bump with someone and
they give you a false name and address.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23573078-details/Rocketing+numbe r+of+illegal+drivers+in+capital/article.do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:31:41 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
I'll ask for a second time in this thread, in case you missed it the
first time:
Do you have a reliable and trustworthy source (i.e. a police or VOSA
press release _not_ a cycling activist newspaper or forum post) for that?
It'd be very strange, assuming that it is actually true, if it wasn't
reported in the main-stream media or on the City of London Police
website or on the TfL, VOSA or TISPOL websites - wouldn't it?
Can anyone find any mention of it anywhere other than those derived from
this:
<http://thebikeshow.net/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum/
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:14:45 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Has she never heard of registration marks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:18:18 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:14:45 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
There are fake/stolen plates and many misregistered cars on the road.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:44:35 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Does that mean that no-one ever gets caught? Or that the registration system
isn't working and should be scrapped as a waste of resources?
I'm only asking that because it isn't easy to see exactly what point you or
she are trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:05:48 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:44:35 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Then I suggest you re-read the posts.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:31:04 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Do I have to?
[And there have been no others on this sub-thread AFAICS.]
Can't you remember whether your point was that registration is useless (and
therefore an unnecessary waste)?
If it's not that, what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:11:01 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:31:04 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
If the driver gives a fake name/address then it is likely that the car
is one of the many that is not registered to the real owner. Otherwise
there would be no point in giving a fake name since the owner could be
traced.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:25:52 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Yes, yes... but (pace the meaning of "many" above)...
...what's the implication?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:20:24 +0100, "Dave Larrington" <...@privacy.net
In news...@pipex.net,
JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.comus:
Quite possibly. But as Mr SMith of this parish will attest, the fact of a
vehicle having a registration plate is no guarantee that the name on the
Great Welsh Computer is actually that of the driver. Especially if the
drive is one of the growing number with a cavalier attitude to such boring
technicalities as tax, MOT, insewerants etc. etc.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukHa ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic
blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war
in Asia"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@mid.individual.net
A friend of mine was assaulted by a driver a while ago. The police weren't
able to do anything at the time because someone had escaped from police
custody at the hospital and apparently every spare officer was needed to
look for them, but did, eventually, promise to look up the registration
number of the van.
The registered owner said he'd sold it a while back and not got round to
sending in the paperwork, and had no idea now who the buyer was.
The police said there was nothing further they could do, end of case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:16:53 +0100, Matt B <...@nospam.london.com
It does make you wonder what the use of it is. If it isn't much use, it
does make you wonder why we bother with it. I wonder how much it costs
to run DVLA. I wonder how much benefit it gives (in terms of crime
detection) by existing.
--
Matt B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|