--- Jon Senior" said:

Quitter! You could take your chances shooting the lion and stroke the
cat.

But I then would still have to live with the guilt and shame of my
failure, knowing that I'd allowed even one piece of feline scum to
escape.

Anyway, I'm gonna killfile this thread now. There's just no reasoning
with idiots like you. No doubt you'll call that quitting too.

--- Just zis Guy, you know? said:

Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk
of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving

No. The point I've been repeatedly making is that it *ISN'T* more
important to control one than the other. It isn't an "Either/Or"
situation. it's about making sure that *ALL* private ,
non-pedestrian-users suffer, no matter what they just happen to be
driving. This whole "Either bike or car" issues that everyone keeps
bringing up is just a smoke screen to hide the real question of "Either
pedestrians or everyone else".

Still, since you're not interested in debating the real issue, you'll be
glad to hear that I'm gonna killfile this whole thread rather than waste
more time talking to anti-pedestrian ****s like you.

On 17/10/04 7:43 am, in article , "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

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
Like crossing on green as well?

b) that it is any less illegal.

Precisely.


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

I was pointing out that there is a difference in the way motorists and
cyclists jump red lights. I didn't and don't condone doing so.

...d

David Martin vaguely muttered something like ...
On 17/10/04 7:43 am, in article , "Paul -
xxx" wrote:

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
Like crossing on green as well?

We weren't discussing how safe or not crossing on green is .. and no, just
'cos a traffics green doesn't necessarily mean I consider it's safe to
cross, atever the vehicle. Do you think it does ?

b) that it is any less illegal.

Precisely.


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

I was pointing out that there is a difference in the way motorists and
cyclists jump red lights.

Jumping a red light is jumping a red light, and how one does it is
immaterial, especially in law.

Isn't this the same argument put forward by many cyclists on this newsgroup
when car drivers speed? Both sets of road users believe THEY are safe, but
can cause havoc for other road users that they cannot or donot see.

I've seen a cyclist get run over crossing on red when they also 'thought' it
was safe to do so .. didn't make the rider of the motorbike that hit him
(which was crosing on a green light) feel any better. SMIDSY works many
ways ...

I didn't and don't condone doing so.

Your post gives that impression.

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

Solar Penguin wrote:

But I then would still have to live with the guilt and shame of my
failure, knowing that I'd allowed even one piece of feline scum to
escape.

Anyway, I'm gonna killfile this thread now. There's just no reasoning
with idiots like you. No doubt you'll call that quitting too.


Don't forget to shoot yourself on the way out.

Tony

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:23:51 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

Still, since you're not interested in debating the real issue, you'll be
glad to hear that I'm gonna killfile this whole thread rather than waste
more time talking to anti-pedestrian ****s like you.

Not an accurate description of Guy.


--
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 =---

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:16:44 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

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.

Really.

I'm realising that no debate with non-pedestrian scum is worth having.

Ditto.


--
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 =---

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:12:53 GMT, Ningi
wrote in message
:

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.

No, he's making the assumption that a proportion of those using both
types of vehicle are prepared to run the light, but that the first car
to stop prevents any further car drivers from doing so, whereas the
first cyclist to stop places no such constraint on other cyclists. It
is a fair point.

I have been stationary at a traffic light (on my bike) and had a BMW
drive round me and through the red light.

It is also worth pointing out that motorists only seem law-abiding by
comparison if you exclude the types of offences they are most likely
to commit. For some reason those motorists who attack cyclists for
running red lights often become very defensive if the word "speeding"
is mentioned :-)

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 Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:36:49 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote in message
:

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.

Example: main road to industrial estate, traffic light which exists to
control a side turning into a power station service road, very lightly
trafficked. By default the light is red for traffic heading from the
estate into town, and the green phase can be as short as ten seconds.
It is galling to approach this light, be able to clearly see that
there is no other traffic on either of the roads controlled, and still
have to stop. It is even more galling to be behind the third car in
the queue and find the light red when you reach the line. And worst
of all is to be detected by the first induction loop, have the lights
go green in front of you, and go red again before you reach the line
because they have assumed that all traffic will be travelling at 30mph
or more.

Large numbers of motorists fail to stop at that light, and they don't
have to work hard to get their speed back. Most cyclists do stop.

The council's view is that cyclists should be on the pavement at this
point. They are evidently convinced that crossing the main road twice
at busy roundabouts and picking your way along a narrow pavement
overhung with trees is safer than riding along the road...

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 Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:23:51 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message
:

Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk
of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving

No. The point I've been repeatedly making is that it *ISN'T* more
important to control one than the other. It isn't an "Either/Or"
situation. it's about making sure that *ALL* private ,
non-pedestrian-users suffer, no matter what they just happen to be
driving. This whole "Either bike or car" issues that everyone keeps
bringing up is just a smoke screen to hide the real question of "Either
pedestrians or everyone else".

And as has been pointed out to you more than once now, this argument
only applies in a situation of unlimited resources. And arguably not
even then, else we would outlaw many things which occasionally cause
injury, albeit with very low risk.

Still, since you're not interested in debating the real issue, you'll be
glad to hear that I'm gonna killfile this whole thread rather than waste
more time talking to anti-pedestrian ****s like you.

Anti-pedestrian? You really don't understand at all, do you? And as
for "debate" - you seem to lack some of the elementary skills required
for that. Like comprehending the other point of view, for example.

For the record I have said all along that the source of the problem is
that roads thought to be so dangerous due to careless drivers that
there is too much incentive for cyclists to take to the pavement, and
councils make this worse by painting bikes on pavements seemingly at
random. To pick on the effect rather than the cause is absurd.

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