In article ,
says...
Normally, when a pelican crossing is on a pedestrian cycle, the traffic
stops to allow pedestrians to cross the road.

The above statement comes across as a little naive to me. Certainly the
crossing outside my flat often bears witness to drivers approaching with
wheels locked because they didn't notice in time, or simply driving
straight through on red.

The cars had stopped, the
"little green man" was green, and the audible indicator was beeping.
Cyclist came up inside a bus, where he couldn't be seen, and zoomed
straight past, utterly ignoring the three facts mentioned above.

As someone once pointed out. Every other driver could be a red light
jumper and you'd never know because it only takes one car to block them.
The same is not true of cyclists so you tend to see the real proportion
of people who believe that the law doesn't apply to them.

Jon

Jon Senior wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 12 Oct 2004:

In article ,
says...
Normally, when a pelican crossing is on a pedestrian cycle, the traffic
stops to allow pedestrians to cross the road.

The above statement comes across as a little naive to me. Certainly the
crossing outside my flat often bears witness to drivers approaching with
wheels locked because they didn't notice in time, or simply driving
straight through on red.

The one outside my flat, too - but not the one just opposite Brixton
Tube station, where this incident happened, where, if anything, it is
the other way about (i.e. the pedestrians cross all the time and woe
betide the hapless traffic!).
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

Annabel Smyth wrote:

Normally, when a pelican crossing is on a pedestrian cycle, the traffic
stops to allow pedestrians to cross the road. The cars had stopped, the
"little green man" was green, and the audible indicator was beeping.
Cyclist came up inside a bus, where he couldn't be seen, and zoomed
straight past, utterly ignoring the three facts mentioned above.

In that case you not only met a cyclist who's actions I don't condone,
you also met one of those p******s who give the rest of us a bad name
for which I apologise.

Tony

On 12 Oct 2004 12:49:06 +0100 (BST), (Alan
Braggins) wrote in message
:

There's more to being a competent professional bus driver than being a
pleasure to share the road with. Making some attempt to stick to the route
on the timetable, for example.

We have two shuttle buses to my office from the station. One is owned
and operated by the property management company, and the driver is a
fine and courteous gentleman who has even been known to give me and my
bike a lift on occasion. The other is of the sort who thinks of
bicycles as a theoretical construct of zero thickness and infinite
rigidity, to be passed with a minimum of diversion from
straight-ahead, and moving at a speed whereby it is save to move back
in again as soon as said cyclist is out of your peripheral vision.

They are both driving the same route to the same timetable, so the
more aggressive one merely has to wait somewhat longer at each end.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:14:21 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote in message
:

Normally, when a pelican crossing is on a pedestrian cycle, the traffic
stops to allow pedestrians to cross the road.

Though not always, for example in Reading. Where it is also
considered perfectly acceptable to drive through bus links clearly
marked for buses and taxis only.

Many road users do whatever they think they can get away with. In the
case of cyclists, they do so primarily at risk to themselves. In the
case of motorists, less so.

Which is why some URCers take umbrage when the lawless behaviour of
some cyclists is used as a smokescreen to obscure the lawless and much
more dangerous behaviour of many drivers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Jon Senior wrote in message .. .
In article ,
says...
I dare say - when you step into the road and have to leap back on to the
pavement to avoid being run down, you consider it "nearly". At least, I
do..... Had I been another inch further into the road, we would have
collided.

I've been surprisingly good at avoiding collisions when pedestrians
randomly wander into the road without looking. It's possible that the
moron in question wouldn't actually have hit you (Although if he was
cycling through a red his skills are somewhat irrelevant).

Good for you. Unfortunately, in most cases I've witness or been a
party to, the cyclists in question invariably jumped reds at Pelicans,
often swerving into view from behind moto vehicles that had actually
stopped at the lights.

Mind you, come to think of it, I'm so fat the cyclist would probably
have come off worst.

Despite my earlier claim I have however hit a pedestrian once while
cycling. Neither of us sustained serious injuries (Although I did have a
stiff arm for a few days) and he was very quick to apologise (His
fault!).

I think you'd actually have to be pretty unlucky to be seriously hurt by
a cyclist. Being in some way attached to the bike means that they tend
to come off worst!

Oh, well that makes it perfectly alright then.

Nick Cooper 625 opined the following...
Good for you. Unfortunately, in most cases I've witness or been a
party to, the cyclists in question invariably jumped reds at Pelicans,
often swerving into view from behind moto vehicles that had actually
stopped at the lights.

In which case the pedestrians weren't randomly wandering into the road
and the cyclists should have stopped. But we've been through this
already.

Oh, well that makes it perfectly alright then.

Not really but (Here we go again) compare and contrast to the same
impact involving a car travelling at a proportionally higher speed (Or
even at the same speed)! There is a reason why despite the apparent
hoards of cyclists (or so we are continually informed) that jump red
lights and ride straight at pedestrians, there is a ridiculously small
number of cycling induced pedestrian casualties each year.

Jon

Jon Senior wrote in message .. .
In article ,
says...
Normally, when a pelican crossing is on a pedestrian cycle, the traffic
stops to allow pedestrians to cross the road.

The above statement comes across as a little naive to me. Certainly the
crossing outside my flat often bears witness to drivers approaching with
wheels locked because they didn't notice in time, or simply driving
straight through on red.

The cars had stopped, the
"little green man" was green, and the audible indicator was beeping.
Cyclist came up inside a bus, where he couldn't be seen, and zoomed
straight past, utterly ignoring the three facts mentioned above.

As someone once pointed out. Every other driver could be a red light
jumper and you'd never know because it only takes one car to block them.
The same is not true of cyclists so you tend to see the real proportion
of people who believe that the law doesn't apply to them.

Not just a river in Egypt....

There is a five-way junction outside Lambeth North Tube station, which
I use as it's the closest to where I work, and so have to negotiate
it as a pedestrian at leat twice a day. Despite the heavy traffic, I
genuinely can't recall the last time I saw a motor vehicle jumping the
lights. Cyclists jumping reds or avoiding them by swerving onto the
pavements, though, are virtually a daily occurance.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:20 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


You can complain to uk.tosspot, who will greet you as a long-lost
brother. They think the fact that "yoofs" on bikes commit offences
justifies

I don't recall putting the sort of cyclist I was complaining about
into any particular age bracket. In fact, my own observations tell me
that the most "serious"-looking of cyclists are - if anything - worse.

Ah, so you are making a non age-specific invalid generalisation
instead of the usual age-specific one. That changes everything,
obviously...

whatever behaviour they see fit to inflict on those unlucky
enough to have to share the road with them, and the disparity in
danger posed by cyclists and motorists is of no relevance.

I could ask you to elaborate on the huge supposition you seem to have
made here, but you've already dug yourself into too deep a hole as it
is.

What supposition? Look back at the history of cross-posted threads
between urc and uk.tosspot.

Your supposition that I have any affinity with - or remit to defend -
the drivers of motor vehicles.

Alternatively you could consider to what extent the relative
seriousness of your pet hate

Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.

And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?

and the homicidal bus driver might be informed by the fact the fact
that the bus driver is trained to a higher standard than most road
users, is entrusted with the safety of multiple occupants of his
vehicle, is driving a large and heavy vehicle and is notionally a
professional driver paid to drive. His company has a duty of care to
those with whom their drivers share the roads.

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.

Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?

On 19 Oct 2004 06:16:58 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote:

What supposition? Look back at the history of cross-posted threads
between urc and uk.tosspot.

Your supposition that I have any affinity with - or remit to defend -
the drivers of motor vehicles.

And yet you seek to prosecute cyclists for the tiny risk they pose,
without at the same time commenting on the equally commonplace and far
more dangerous lawbreaking of motorised road users. Why is that, I
wonder? Most pedestrians' representatives seem to have no trouble
distinguishing between the scale of risk posed by cars and bicycles,
and devote their efforts to controlling motor danger. We already know
that you are about 200 times more likely to be killed /on the footway/
by a motor driver than by a cyclist, after all.

But instead of railing against lawlessness among vehicle users - which
is not in any way contentious (except on uk.tosspot, a fantasy land
where speeding is not illegal) - you choose to pick on those who not
only pose little risk, but actually share the danger. In case you
hadnt noticed the leading cause of both pedestrian and cyclist death
is collisions involving motor vehicles. And cyclists are actually
much less likely to be to blame for their own demise than are
pedestrians.

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.

And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?

Up through the thread history, that is how you started the whole
thing.

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.

Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?

Indeed I do, having spent a lot of time researching the matter.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University