Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Hansen gently breathed:
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.

Some people are insane. And IME lots of them drive mid-range BMWs.

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.

The Renault Megane was once advertised as "the safest car in it's
class". One was tempted to Photoshop one of those ads to show a
disintegrating car wrapped round the front of a Class 37 locomotive at
speed and add to the caption "but not in this class". :-)

--
- 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.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "Just zis
Guy, you know?" gently breathed:
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.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, other than
idiotic setup of the traffic lights, in which case they need fixing. It
certainly doesn't justify anyone going through them on red, and if this
is a significant problem then they need both fixing, and a camera.

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.

Good for the cyclists, though it sounds as if there should perhaps be a
plunger for cyclists to press to start the sequence, rather than using
the induction loops.

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...

Council are wrong and need to be re-educated. But bad cycle facilities
are not a justification for red-light jumping.

--
- 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.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Hansen gently breathed:
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?

Yes, though (as with cyclists), only to deliberate law-breakers who go
through long after the light has changed. ISTR a policeman on TV years
ago explaining that red-light cameras were set not to fire for the first
few seconds of the red so as not to be too hard on people who made a
genuine miscalculation, but instead to target deliberate and determined
law-breaking. The article included a video shot by a CCTV camera at a
crossroads where the lights for one route went to red, a car crossed
just as they went red and that wasn't a big problem, but then about 30
seconds later (which is a significant time in traffic-light terms) some
nutter in a van merrily drove through the red at 35mph and rammed a car
crossing legally on the green on the other road. Seemingly that had
been used in court and the van driver got a fairly hefty penalty, and
the video was being used to explain the then new concept of
traffic-light cameras.

IME every traffic light should have a camera, a red signal is a danger
signal and should *always* mean stop.

NP: Lupine - Molly Lee.
--
- 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.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

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

Earlier this year I stopped at a light-controlled crossing. A truck didn't.
The woman crossing the road with a child in a push-chair was, it seemed to
me, quite lucky that the truck missed her.

Obviously the truck had been stolen by a cyclist.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
They came for Dani Behr
I said "She's over there, behind the wardrobe"

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:50:39 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote:

Yes, though (as with cyclists), only to deliberate law-breakers who go
through long after the light has changed. ISTR a policeman on TV years
ago explaining that red-light cameras were set not to fire for the first
few seconds of the red so as not to be too hard on people who made a
genuine miscalculation, but instead to target deliberate and determined
law-breaking.

You are supposed to regard an amber light as a stop signal, but as
usual drivers have consumed the safety margin as a performance
benefit, frequently accelerating through on amber, and then ask for
additional margin on top.

Just like speed cameras. If you make even a half-serious attempt
drive to the speed limit you are unlikely to trigger any camera, since
they are set to 10% + 3mph, and most speedos over-read anyway; instead
people drive to the ACPO prosecution guidelines and whine about being
caught for "a few mph over" when actually they are a few mph over the
guidelines, which are already 20% over the limit for a 30 zone.

When I was learning to drive I was told the meanings of the traffic
light colours could be considered as follows:

Red: Stop
Amber: Stop
Red-Amber: Stop
Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.

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 Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:50:25 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote:

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, other than
idiotic setup of the traffic lights, in which case they need fixing.

It is just that: an example of idiotic setup of lights, which will not
be fixed because the council think cyclists should be on the pavement.

Council are wrong and need to be re-educated. But bad cycle facilities
are not a justification for red-light jumping.

No excuse, no, but you can see why it happens. Just as you can see
why people ride on the pavement. But we should aim to fix the
problem, not the symptom.

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

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


Martin, may I respond as follows?


1. I don't see what age has to do with it: a "boy" cyclist is just as liable to
cause someone distress or injury as anyone else. We seem to live in a society
where everyone has "rights" and no-one has "responsibility", especially youths.
Be that as it may, SOMEONE would have to take the legal responsibility for a
child's registration since they might be under the age of criminal
responsibility anyway.

2. I agree!

3. I couldn't agree more!

Marc.

Just zis Guy, you know? opined the following...
Red: Stop
Amber: Stop
Red-Amber: Stop
Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.

I like that. Might become a T-Shirt at some point! ;-)

Jon

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:12:47 +0100, Jon Senior
jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? opined the following...
Red: Stop
Amber: Stop
Red-Amber: Stop
Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.

I like that. Might become a T-Shirt at some point! ;-)

Jon

I once heard the Italian variant of this.

Green - foot to the floor
Amber - keep your foot down
Red - room for one more, keep your foot down

"Al C-F" m wrote in
message ...

I once heard the Italian variant of this.

Green - foot to the floor
Amber - keep your foot down
Red - room for one more, keep your foot down

And the spoof Fiat advert with picture of a total wreck:-

Designed by computers
Built by robots
Driven by Italians

T