Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#112
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
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 :-) Come on, be fair Guy. There was only the tiny number of 1.5 million drivers prosecuted for speeding in 2002 heading for a likely 2 million in 2003. Anyone would think it was common for motorist to break the law whereas cyclists - well the massive number of 700 prosecutions a year for all offences says it all. Tony ;-^) |
#113
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17/10/04 10:21 am, in article , "Paul - xxx"
wrote: Jumping a red light is jumping a red light, and how one does it is immaterial, especially in law. No, how one does it is immaterial in law. Otherwise it matters enormously how one does it (should one do such a thing which I do not condone). ...d |
#114
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:32:33 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:- I have been stationary at a traffic light (on my bike) and had a BMW drive round me and through the red light. I have seen this happen too. Even the threat of their own death does not deter some motorists. Overtaking a queue of vehicles waiting at a level crossing and driving onto the crossing is common enough not to be remarkable. It is impossible to miss the alternately flashing red lights on a level crossing, the only explanation is that the motorist considers their journey more important that anything else. Perhaps they should have number plates made up that read "SOD U". Perhaps they believe the propaganda of car manufacturers about "safety features" of cars. -- 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 =--- |
#115
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ian Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, Solar Penguin wrote: Anyway what is the right word? Where you start by solving the problems that you *are* able to solve instead of wasting your time trying to solve the ones that can't be solved until later? Whatever it's called, that's what I was thinking of. "Rearranging deckchairs on the Titannic"? Todays coffee-over-keyboard moment :-) Pete |
#116
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote in message ...
Ian Walker typed Is anybody else's Troll-o-Meter twitching, or is it just me? Mine is. Please do not feed the trolls! What is institutionalised about cyclists, praydotell? The CTC, whose members generally do not break the law, maybe... No trolling, just a failure to anticipate "demand" for comment and therefore to be available to participate in my own thread... The "institutionalised" was referring to a number of issues: 1. The law breaking of the police 2. The acceptance into mainstream business of law breaking as a competitive advantage 3. The failure of all institutions (including nebulous ones such as the general population) to deal with the problem. Hope that clarifies things - I was, and am, serious about the issues proposed in the original post. Best wishes Silas |
#117
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Walker wrote in message ...
In article , "Solar Penguin" wrote: --- Ian Smith said: On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, Silas Denyer wrote: (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and does result in death). How many per annum on average? That isn't the point - widespread lawlessness amongst one section of the road-using community will IMHO inevitably lead to an increase in the same or similar behaviour by other sections. Would you countenance motor scooters riding on pavements (often slower than many "head-down" cyclists)? Should all road users consider red lights as optional? And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per annum do you think are expendable? Apparently society thinks the answer is 'quite a few'. We could have no pedestrians dying if we, say, banned vehicles or imposed 1 mph speed limits everywhere, but we don't. Therefore, to society, however many pedestrians die each year is the 'right' number given the advantages vehicles offer. I'm not saying I approve, I'm just saying that tacitly, society /does/ count some people as expendable. This isn't my point at all. Do you agree with the laws about red lights? 1. Yes / 2. No Do you believe that such laws should not apply to cyclists? 1. Yes / 2. No If your score is 2 then we're all in trouble. Regards Silas Ian |
#118
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote in message .. .
Solar Penguin opined the following... Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?) And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes. Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with! Actually, the last time I hit a pedestrian (The only time in fact) I came off far worse. He got knocked sideways and was up (and apologising) by them time I had come to a halt. The problem with bikes is that the person attached to it usually has to lose more speed before coming to a standstill and has more chance of ending up tangled in the wreckage. As an example, Rollerblades were, ISTR, banned in the Royal Parks because a pedestrian was killed by being hit by a 'blader on a "pavement". The pedestrian had no choice in the matter (as opposed to the choice of not walking in the road with cars). Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear of being hit - by *anything*. The earlier "1ft vs 6ft" argument, for instance, was spurious in this regard. I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law), whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. It took me a good long time to recover from that. It was not trivial (except when compared to death) and was caused entirely by the cyclist "only doing what everyone does" (his words). That is my point - break down the apparent scale of the offence and soon nobody knows what is "wrong" or "unacceptable" or even "undesirable" any longer. The analogy was daft, but by extension, so is the bizarre premise that we should deal with the problem that is easier to solve rather than the one which is the biggest threat. No, the analogy was simply non-analagous. Consider this one instead: You have to defend Smallium from attack by a mixed bag of opponents from a single direction. Some have assault rifles, others have sharpened fruit. You keep out the riflemen but let through the less lethal (but not non-lethal) fruit carriers, and accept a number of civilian casualties from fruit. Soon the riflemen realise that disguising their weapons as fruit is a good way to go, whilst your guards become used to letting some enemies in. What do you think happens next? A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot? Let's face it. It's not going to be the cat is it? Yet you advocate shooting the cat, because it'll die with the first shot even though the lion poses a Plucks figure from air 3000 times greater threat to you. Is there anyone on u.r.c. who condones cycling on pavements and through red lights? Probably not. Is there anyone there who honestly believes that effective action against such offenders would have any noticeable effect on the KSI stats for our roads? Probably not. Given the choice (Assume that it is unavoidable) of being hit by a cyclist (~95kg @ 15mph) or a car (~1500kg @ 30mph) which would you choose? Can you not see why we might find such trolling patently ridiculous or do you need more time to think about it? OK, but: (a) if every red light has a camera, and most motorists don't want to be caught by them, and casualties continue to decrease, suddenly cyclists look like a big problem. (b) how long will people respect the rule of law if it is flouted by everybody else, including the police (see my original post)? Silas |
#119
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tony Raven wrote in message ...
Its either/or because the amount of resources, financial or human, available to devote to the problem is limited. If there were infinite resources it would not be an either/or situation but both. As it is choices have to be made as to which one is the most effective deployment of the resources you have. No, that is nonsense. The most useful thing would be for every reader here who does not agree with running red lights to start challenging those cyclists they see who do run them. That is the *third* choice, but it appears that nobody is prepared to do anything except wait for state enforcement. Does this community have no moral fibre or sense of social responsibility? Furthermore, the resources required to plate cycles are hardly large, are they? The infrastructure all exists, as do the laws, the enforcement regime, etc. But I don't think anybody wants that, so time for the human approach. In the lion/cat example its a question of only having one bullet. If you had a whole magazine full it would be easy. You shoot both, lion first. With one bullet, unless you can find some fancy way of enticing the lion to eat the cat before it eats you or you can get the cat to stand in front of the lion so you can get both with one shot, how would you use your one bullet? The bullet is already there (the law exists, as do the police, the cameras, etc.) All that is needed is to put a tag on the cat as well as the lion. Silas |
#120
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"David Splett" wrote in message ...
"Mait001" wrote in message ... 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? By being illegal. Do you support the uniform and even-handed application of long-standing laws? 1. Yes, 2. No. 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 There are two answers to this 1. Pedestrians (by law) have the right of way over all other road users on all roads where they are not prohibited (e.g. motorways). It is your duty to avoid them, not their duty to avoid you. Cycle paths are for, as it were, "cycles and slower things", not just cycles. 2. If cyclists don't respect pavements, pedestrians, or road traffic laws of any description, then why should pedestrians bother to respect cyclists and their needs? This is my point about "anarchy" - the complete breakdown of all respect for laws, each other, society, etc. Silas |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'Near miss' between District and Piccadilly line trains near EalingBdwy | London Transport | |||
OTish: Laptops on planes - hand luggage? | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport |