"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
m...
Last week I had to drive (in a car) across London. I made a note of
all cyclists I saw with red traffic lights against them, and their
behaviour. Of 182 I encountered on my (fairly long and, as you'll
gather, dull) drive, only 8 stopped at a red light against them - less
than 5%.

Right. If you were really making such meticulous notes of cyclists, you
couldn't have been paying proper attention to your own driving.


Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Not me. Get a life.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:04:21 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

Never heard of "triage"?

I have.

The priority is to start with the threat
that's most easily dealt with and once that's out of the way, you'll
have more freedom to deal with the more complicated threats.

Really.

Meanwhile the more complicated will probably have died.

Next contestant please.


--
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 19:38:06 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.

Yawn.


--
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 20:32:23 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

good old fashioned common sense?

"Common sense" is very common. However, that does not mean it is
sensible.

Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response
too

I note that your loud words do not amount to a reasoned criticism of
Guy's page. Had you a better response I suspect that you would have
made it.


--
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 wrote:
Ningi wrote:



Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights.
If the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car
arriving at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the
case. I can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red,
whereas I find it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who
stopped for one.


That would accord with my experience with cars. Lights go red, three
cars carry on, fourth car stops, rest have to stop behind it. With
cyclists and the same percentage you would see 10 cyclists approach, 3
cross on red, fourth stops, next three cycle past stopped cyclist to
cross on red etc. So with a 75% disobedience rate for both you would
see three out of all the cars approaching the red light carry on but 75%
of all cyclists.


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.

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.

Pete

On 17/10/04 12:00 am, in article ,
"David Hansen" wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:32:23 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" wrote this:-

good old fashioned common sense?

"Common sense" is very common. However, that does not mean it is
sensible.

Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response
too

I note that your loud words do not amount to a reasoned criticism of
Guy's page. Had you a better response I suspect that you would have
made it.


I have a lot of sympathy for the perceptions of the pedestrians, after all I
am one at various times. It is , however, often the case that perceptions
are misleading.

We know that in the lawless capital of the land down south that many more
pedestrians are injured by motor vehicles on the footway than by cycles. By
a few orders of magnitude.

Cyclists on the pavement or jumping red lights through streams of traffic
are irritating because they invade ones personal space and, much like
finding an insect where one wouldn't wish to, are annoying and in some cases
upsetting. They are however rarely harmful.

I suppose the reason they (the lawless proportion of cyclists) are prepared
to behave in such a manner is because they have been left with little
personal space of their own on the road, either by deliberate ceding of it
in order to make rapid progress through the traffic., or by having it taken
by motor vehicles cutting them up or buzzing past just a hairs breadth away.

The roads would be safer for all if cyclists used them more. And if a
presumption of guilt was placed upon motor vehicle operators for accidents.
(it would probably lead to reduced motor insurance premiums).

However, having said that, the OP has gone off the rails a bit, ranting on
about doing the unfeasible in search of the ineffectual, with the end result
the opposite of their original intent.

...d

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

"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?


People EXPECT fast-moving traffic on roads and take the appropriate
precautions. They do not (and should not) EXPECT to encounter fast-moving
traffic on pavements.

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

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.

Pete


..d

[1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around

Martin Smith wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:50:25 GMT, ningi
wrote:

davek wrote:

Silas Denyer wrote:


Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates


Cars have those and it doesn't stop their drivers jumping red lights or
driving on the pavement.

Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that
bikes do in London, so perhaps it does.


you obviously haven't been to South London recently

Apart from living there

Well, SW London.

Pete


Pete