Just zis Guy, you know? opined the following...
To pick on the effect rather than the cause is absurd.

But very normal. Symptomatic treatment is all that some people seem to
understand.

Jon

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 ;-^)

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

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 =---

"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

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

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

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

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

"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