"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...
congokid wrote:

The difference is that motor vehicles who go through red lights
generally do so in the first second or two of the red phase, when the
risk of collision is lower because phasing has become more
conservative* (not that I'm trying to condone the practice).

Many of the cyclists who go through red lights seem to do so at any time
in the red phase whatever the collision risk.

That's my experience too. I think I've only seen one car - in Liverpool city
centre - blatantly go through lights that had been red for some time and
were a long way of turning green again. Most offenders either leave it too
late to brake (or even speed up) when they see the amber or else anticipate
the green and set off on amber.

The cyclists who go through red lights or zebra crossing seem to treat those
restrictions as if they apply only to motor vehicles and not to them. Of
course that's a minority of the total number of cyclists who are on the
roads.

I once witnessed what could have been a very nasty accident as I was walking
to lectures when I was at Bristol University. There's a long gradual hill
(the un-PC-named Blackboy Hill) which slopes down into the city centre. A
cyclist (not sure whether he was a student) overtook a stream of cars that
was stopped for several pedestrians on a zebra crossing and VERY nearly ran
straight into a young woman pushing a pram. He swerved at the last minute
and went skidding along the road. Despite being covered in blood, he got up
and ran to woman, shouting abuse along the lines of "how dare you cross on a
zebra crossing" (!) and looked as if her was about to attack her - until a
friend of mine who was built like a brick sh1thouse restrained him. The last
I saw, he was being led away by the police. I was surprised that the police
didn't want me to make an official witness statement, just an informal "can
you tell us what happened" report to the first PC on the scene.

Likewise in Oxford last year I was cycling along St Giles at a fair speed,
but I could see a lot of tourists crossing on a zebra crossing ahead so I
slowed down, ready to stop. I was overtaken by a cyclist who was "cycling
furiously" (the nearest equivalent to speeding that cyclists can be charged
with) and who rode straight at the continuous line of pedestrians,
scattering them left and right, making a gap that he just managed to squeeze
through. There were a lot of very shocked tourists on that crossing. The car
that was behind me shouted that he was going to chase after the cyclist and
give him a piece of his mind! I didn;t see how things turned out.

Both times, I suspect that the cyclists thought that zebra crossings didn't
apply to them and that since the bikes didn't carry any official form of ID,
they could get away scot-free.

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

congokid wrote:
In message ,
Martin Underwood writes

It's fairly rare to
see cars etc go through red lights (I've probably seen under ten
in the 25 years I've been driving)

That's amazing. I see about 10 motor vehicles going through red
lights every morning on my five mile cycle to work.

The difference is that motor vehicles who go through red lights
generally do so in the first second or two of the red phase, when the
risk of collision is lower because phasing has become more
conservative* (not that I'm trying to condone the practice).

Many of the cyclists who go through red lights seem to do so at any
time in the red phase whatever the collision risk.

* 40-odd years ago I was living in Cambridge near the junction of
Parkside and Clarendon Street, where the buildings came right up to the
footway producing a blind corner, and there were regular accidents
because the lights had coincident ambers, i.e. one direction got
red-and-amber when the other direction got amber. They changed the
phasing to "sequent ambers", but I dare say there's an all-red phase
now (do you know, Colin R?).

I know it well as it's near my house and in the ward I represent as a
councillor. It's got far less traffic now as Clarendon Street doesn't
lead through to anywhere now so has very low traffic volumes and only
buses, taxis and cycles can use Emmanuel Road as a through route. There
is also a right-turn ban into Parker Street to allow for pedestrians to
cross there.

I agree traffic light phasing is much more leisurely now but the result
is an increase in the number of motorists who shamelessly jump the red
phase. This is worst of all on roundabouts.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

It was obviously going to happen. All the mob who suddenly leapt onto
pedal bikes after the 7th July, are now being a menace to themselves and
anyone else who gets near them. I regularly see them going through red
lights, treating the pavement and roadway and equally appropriate places
to hurtle along...etc.

I haven't cycled in London since February, is it really that much worse now?

The sad thing is that they're probably thousands of times more likely to
get maimed riding a cycle than using the tube or bus.

Any figures for the relative likelihood of death and/or injury on a bicycle
compared to the tube or bus?

Surely it's time for cycles to be registered and insured ?

As already mentioned, lots of cycles are insured. I am insured through the
CTC. Household insurance is another source of bicycle insurance.

I'm not suggesting mandatory training.

Why not? It's the most obvious way of ensuring that people know what's
expected of them on the road.

To be honest I think they all know the
correct way to drive, but they just don't care.

The correct way to drive and the correct way to cycle are not identical.
You're partly right though. Some cyclists don't care. I expect them to have
a very short cycling life.

Put a traceable
registration number on the back and it'll give them an incentive not to
ride like lunatics.

Where exactly "on the back" do you propose siting this number? A lot of
bikes have nowhere to put one.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

This is probably the only good reason for registering bicycles. But not good
enough, IMO.

--
Chris

Pardo's First Postulate: Anything good in life is either illegal, immoral,
or fattening.
Arnold's Addendum: Everything else causes cancer in rats.

In article , (Chris Slade)
wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

It was obviously going to happen. All the mob who suddenly leapt onto
pedal bikes after the 7th July, are now being a menace to themselves
and anyone else who gets near them. I regularly see them going
through red lights, treating the pavement and roadway and equally
appropriate places to hurtle along...etc.

I haven't cycled in London since February, is it really that much
worse
now?

Of course not. He's just another Usenet whinger.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Martin
Underwood writes
There's a long gradual hill (the un-PC-named Blackboy Hill)
Just the top of Whiteladies Road which is quite steep from the downs for
about 100yds is locally known as Blackboy Hill.
--
Clive

In message , Chris Slade
writes
Where exactly "on the back" do you propose siting this number? A lot of
bikes have nowhere to put one.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

This is probably the only good reason for registering bicycles. But not
good enough, IMO.
If mopeds have to carry registration plates and the users be insured, a
moped just being a bike with a little engine attached, then so should
bikes. What is reasonable for one, equally applies to the other.
--
Clive

So if you cycle at 10mph, stay in 30 or 20mph zones. If you're doing
20, you should be OK on 40mph roads - and won't be welcome or as safe
on the shared path alongside.

So you're basically ruling out cycling on 90% of the country and
restricting cycles to urban areas.

While we're about it, why not exclude horses, tractors, mopeds, and
(god forbid) walkers from any country lane, after all, they are
designed for cars to do 60mph on.

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Slade
writes
Where exactly "on the back" do you propose siting this number? A lot of
bikes have nowhere to put one.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

This is probably the only good reason for registering bicycles. But not
good enough, IMO.
If mopeds have to carry registration plates and the users be insured, a
moped just being a bike with a little engine attached, then so should
bikes. What is reasonable for one, equally applies to the other.

So, going down this route would mean that cycles require an MOT. I wouldn't
be allowed to respray it, and with 25 million bikes in the UK one hell of a
headache. You'll just find that it's another thing the police get blamed for
not checking.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:33:05 +0100, "elyob"
wrote:


So, going down this route would mean that cycles require an MOT. I wouldn't
be allowed to respray it, and with 25 million bikes in the UK one hell of a
headache. You'll just find that it's another thing the police get blamed for
not checking.

I hate myself for the next phrase, so let's get it over quickly :-)

"When I was a boy..."

Arrrrrggh!

but......if your bike lights had broken, you pushed it home, 'cause
the police WOULD stop you. You waited at traffic lights. Is it just
in London that the police have been instructed to ignore violations by
cyclists, or all over Britain? We're only as lawless as we allow
ourselves to become.

In message , elyob
writes
If mopeds have to carry registration plates and the users be insured, a
moped just being a bike with a little engine attached, then so should
bikes. What is reasonable for one, equally applies to the other.

So, going down this route would mean that cycles require an MOT. I
wouldn't be allowed to respray it, and with 25 million bikes in the UK
one hell of a headache. You'll just find that it's another thing the
police get blamed for not checking.
You to can wriggle when you don't have a valid argument.
--
Clive