On 17/10/04 12:28 am, in article
, "ningi"
wrote:

David Martin wrote:
On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
, "Ningi"
wrote:




As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
are significantly different behaviours.


Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
slow down and cross if safe[1].

I regularly don'r see much slowing down taking place. It is equally
common for cyclists to continue through the light at the pace they
arrived at.


Well, one would tend to slow down before a hazard rather than in the
hazard.. and with a bike being fairly slow moving anyway, there isn't much
slowing down needing to be done.
...d

On 16 Oct 2004 20:22:49 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable.

I'm not sure I agree with that inference.

Perhaps you could indicate why.

Is the mass media full of articles condemning these deaths, calling
for the heads of those responsible, quoting Louise Christian and
asking for systems costing millions of pounds per equivalent
fatality to be installed to guard against future deaths?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , Mait001
writes
Why is compulsory registration such an incredible idea?

They do it in Cambridge.

Or, are cyclists some sort of God-like morally superior beings that
should not be controlled in the same way as others who use vehicles on
a road?

1. No, but in many cases they're under 16. Does this make a difference?

2. It's usually the over-40 POB's (People on Bikes) you see cycling on
suburban pavements. Why are they scared of cycling on roads? Could it be
they drive like crazy ****ers themselves so appreciate the danger?

3. Boy racers. Some drive cars, some ride motor-bikes, and some
push-bikes. They're all idiots.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

This is nonsense: cycling on pavements is not only dangerous but
anti-social.

Always? How does a carefully-ridden bicycle on a pavement differ from, for
example, a wheelchair?

As a child, I was taught NEVER to cycle on a pavement: it was simply bad
manners. Moreover, it might startle the aged and infirm.

Obviously, I was not talking about carefully-ridden bicycles in general, but
even the most carefully ridden bike can cause alarm (or worse) to a pedestrian
on a blind corner.

If pedestrians are so scared of cyclists, why do they often walk on
designated cycle paths when alternatives are available? I refer to
Stevenage, which has a comprehensive system of cycle paths and pavements,
all of which are segregated from each other and from roads. Needless to say
it's *very* common to see people walking on the cycle path. sigh

I don't know Stevenage that well (save for the Magistrates' Court where I
occasionally prosecute) but I can imagine lots of circumstances where
pedestrians would have to cross or walk over cycle paths.

As an interesting side issue, are there actually by-laws that prevent
pedestrians from walking on cycle paths?

Marc.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Martin gently breathed:
On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
, "Ningi"
wrote:

As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
are significantly different behaviours.

Agreed completely - and while I applaud and encourage more red light
cameras to catch drivers who try it on, the behaviour of some people on
bikes is utterly inexcusable.

Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
slow down and cross if safe[1].
[1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around

Complete ********.

Cyclists who deliberately crash red lights should, IME, have their bikes
confiscated by the authorities and auctioned off, to provide a source
of good but cheap bikes for those of us who do believe in obeying the
law.

Anyone who deliberately rides through a red light in anything other than
a dire emergency is a complete moron and should be put off the road.

And for the record, I'm speaking as a cyclist.

--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

David Martin vaguely muttered something like ...
On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
, "Ningi"
wrote:



As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
are significantly different behaviours.

Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
slow down and cross if safe[1].

..d

[1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around

Oh come on .. you're now using arguments that many cyclists in this
newsgroup decry car drivers for ...

Just because a manouvre you consider is safe, doesn't mean
a) that it _is_ safe
b) that it is any less illegal.

See, that's the troubl;e with generalisation .. NOT all car drivers run red
lights, NOT all cyclists run red lights.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

David Splett ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Always? How does a carefully-ridden bicycle on a pavement differ from,
for example, a wheelchair?

Apart from the difference in speed and legality?

Ningi wrote:


Well, I've just had a rather nice Italian meal with plenty of
Montepulciano, so I'll take this further

You're making the assumption that the cars behind the one that stopped
would all have preferred to run the red light. I don't think this is
supportable. It's just as plausible that the 4th car decided not to run
the light because it was no longer safe, and the subsequent vehicles
would have made the same decision.


No, just pointing out that to get the sampling statistics right on cars
you need to count how many go through before the first one stops. Three
through and the indication is 75% ignoring the light, 4 through and its
80%. Its no use saying 10 cars approached the lights, three went
through and seven stopped so its only 30% because six had no choice
about the matter.


Always tough trying to guess what people are thinking.

As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
are significantly different behaviours.


Or significantly different opportunities


Tony

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:36:49 +0100 someone who may be Pyromancer
wrote this:-

Cyclists who deliberately crash red lights should, IME, have their bikes
confiscated by the authorities and auctioned off, to provide a source
of good but cheap bikes for those of us who do believe in obeying the
law.

Do you believe the same should happen to law breaking motorists?

If not, why not?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

--- Tony Raven said:
Solar Penguin wrote:

If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of
them.
Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my
enemies
had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had
the
chance to harm me.


Amazing. You'd rather use it commit suicide than kill the only thing
that really threatens you.

If I've gone there specifically for the purpose of killing *ALL* feline
creatures, and would rather die than leave even one alive, then yes of
course I would. What's the alternative? Live the rest of my life, with
the guilt and shame of knowing that I'd allowed a feline to contaminate
the world with its existence?

And in real life, I want to see *ALL* private, non-pedestrian road-users
suffering as much as possible as often as possible. I don't want even
one to escape. Cyclists aren't pedestrians. Therefore, they're the
enemy too. And as such, I want to see them suffer too.

You're right this "debate" is not worth having.

I'm realising that no debate with non-pedestrian scum is worth having.
Sorry, guys. Time to killfile this thread. Byeee...