| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Paul Terry" wrote in message In message Ian writes How often have you seen a cyclist dismount before using the pavement? They normally ride along the pavement and expect pedestrians to jump out of the way, even though it has been offence for 180 years to ride on the pavement. The police no longer enforce the no cycling on the pavement law as can be clearly seen in dft_foi_037604.pdf. In 1984 there were 1991 successful prosecution for cycling on the pavement. By 2003 there were only 82. Perhaps that's because the police now issue on-the-spot penalty notices rather than prosecuting. This has happened to more than one person I know in recent months. Maybe, but this is not borne out by looking at the figures. There were 1,991 prosecutions for cycling on the pavement in 1984, this reduced to 276 in 1991. It then went up to 933 in 1998 and down again to 82 in 2003. Other figures don't suggest that the number of cyclists followed this pattern and I according to my local police, Nips for cyclists is a new thing. If anything cyclists have become less likely to comply with the law from my own observations. I have seen this year cyclists ride passed policemen on the pavement without comment and through a pedestrian precinct right passed the no cycling sign, again without comment. At night it is unusual to spot a cyclist with lights on in town and as for cycling through red traffic lights during the pedestrian crossing phase....... Ian |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote: "Richard J." typed Likewise, cyclists whose machines do not trigger sensors are not obliged to die of exposure for that reason. Cyclists can always dismount and walk across the junction. It is still an offence to pass the stop line whilst wheeling a bicycle though. Really? I thought if you wheeled a bicycle you became a pedestrian, as with a shopping trolley. I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. tom -- Would you like to remember more? |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Richard J." typed
I can't believe the law is that much of an ass. Do you have a reference? Sorry no. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
|
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
I may be accused of heresy, but I'd impose a minimum speed limit of (say) 10 mph on all roads to make sure that prams, cyclists who are walking with their bikes, electric buggies etc are kept on the pavement where the differential speed between them and pedestrians is less than between them and cars in the road. What about pedestrians on roads where there is no pavement? Or preserved steam traction engines? -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" - Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman. |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:58:12 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote: You can argue all night over whether a cyclist who gets off and pushes becomes a pedestrian. I was right, I see :-) |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Martin Underwood wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in : On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:
Martin Underwood wrote: Tom Anderson wrote in : On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Round these parts, pardner ... Sorry. Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. I'll ask him next time i see him - probably in a few months - but he's not really a chapter-and-verse sort of guy. tom -- find porn apricot |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk... Try reporting it as a fault to http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/ Thanks! No-one bother me for a while, I have a few hundred street faults to report. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message ... .... AIUI you can squeeze past a red light if you think the traffic lights are out of order. The OP waited five minutes and then had good reason to believe this was the case. Regulation 36 (1) (a) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states that 'the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line'. The only permitted exceptions are where there is one or more green arrow (regs 36 (1) (f) and (g)) and for emergency vehicles (reg 36 (1) (b)). If you cross the line against a red light under any other circumstances you have committed an offence. Showing that the lights had failed might be accepted in mitigation if you end up in Court as a result of doing so. Colin Bignell |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Nick Finnigan wrote in
: Martin Underwood wrote: Nick Finnigan wrote in : The stop line usually goes across only the left hand side of the carriageway, but nobody imagines that using the right hand side of the road gets you past a red light legally. Cyclists can cycle past a stop line if there is a marked cycle lane which is not covered by it. Ah, so the absence of a stop line on a cycle lane in the road means it's OK to go ahead, but the absence of a stop line on a pavement that is separated from the road by a kerb still means you have to stop? Perverse. Yep. I'm not sure whether a shopping trolley could be classed as a vehicle, on the grounds that it's not usually used for carrying people on/in it - unless you count the obligatory pekinese that the LOL/LOM always seems to carry in their trolley! It would be a goods vehicle (even with pekinese dogs in it). So it would need a licence to transport livestock as well. |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Richard J. wrote:
John Rowland wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... We also seem to have gone backwards on area control of a set of lights. Do these schemes still exist in London? I keep being stopped, particularly at light-controlled pedestrian crossings, in a way that sug gests that each set of lights functions independently. There is already London-wide control of traffic signals on the major road network under the control of the SCOOT computer system, which monitors traffic flow across the whole network and adjusts signal timings accordingly. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message .uk... Try reporting it as a fault to http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/ Thanks! No-one bother me for a while, I have a few hundred street faults to report. Good luck... I reported a fault with some street lighting in Shepherd's Bush (quite a dangerous fault - the lights in a pedestrian subway had gone, plunging it into darkness), and ended up ringing around about 6 different numbers when nothing got done about it. I got bounced around from TfL to Kensington, who said it was Hammersmith's problem, who said it was TfL's, who said I needed to ring their contractors, who told me I had rung the wrong number etc... eventually the lighting got fixed. But it did break again two days later. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message Anyway, if you wheel your bicycle past the stop line on the pavement, surely you count as a pedestrian then? How often have you seen a cyclist dismount before using the pavement? They normally ride along the pavement and expect pedestrians to jump out of the way, even though it has been offence for 180 years to ride on the pavement. The police no longer enforce the no cycling on the pavement law as can be clearly seen in dft_foi_037604.pdf. In 1984 there were 1991 successful prosecution for cycling on the pavement. By 2003 there were only 82. Similarly, in 1982 there were 4441 successful prosecution of cyclists for lighting and reflector offences. By 2003 this had dropped to 166. Careless and reckless cycling offences peak on the table mentioned above at 398 in 1983. By 2003 they had dropped to 77. According to dft_transstats_031373, 214 pedestrians were hit by cyclists, 38 were seriously injured and 4 killed. I don't suppose that those injured and the relatives of those killed by cyclists think that dangerous cycling is as trivial as the police obviously now do. Although certainly the numbers "caught" have gone down, as someone else said, it's now a fixed penalty notice job. In Kensington & Chelsea they are certainly having a crackdown on cyclists riding on the pavement. As a cyclist (some days of the week), it annoys me to see people do this (and to see cyclists going through red lights) as it makes everyone more hostile towards cyclists (although that's been discussed at great length here before!). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Richard J." wrote in message Martin Underwood wrote: Tom Anderson wrote in : On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. -- I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online. Ian |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message Martin Underwood wrote: Tom Anderson wrote in . li: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. -- I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online. http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html has an appropriate discussion. |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Nick Finnigan wrote:
Ian wrote: "Richard J." wrote in message Martin Underwood wrote: Tom Anderson wrote in : On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. -- I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online. http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html has an appropriate discussion. It does indeed, and concludes that a person pushing a bike, on a pedestrian crossing anyway, is a pedestrian. "a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'." -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Ian" wrote in message ... SNIP I have seen this year cyclists ride passed policemen on the pavement without comment and through a pedestrian precinct right passed the no cycling sign, again without comment. At night it is unusual to spot a cyclist with lights on in town and as for cycling through red traffic lights during the pedestrian crossing phase....... Ian You frequently see cyclists, usually kids, cycling across zebra crossings which is an offence but I doubt anybody ever told them that !! Baz |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Richard J." wrote in message Nick Finnigan wrote: Ian wrote: "Richard J." wrote in message Martin Underwood wrote: Tom Anderson wrote in : On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote: I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW. What planet are these law-makers on? Tom's a law maker?? Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible. -- I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online. http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html has an appropriate discussion. It does indeed, and concludes that a person pushing a bike, on a pedestrian crossing anyway, is a pedestrian. "a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'." -- Thanks Nick for the link. So if a cyclist rides across a pedestrian crossing can I legally knock him/her over? Ian |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, John Rowland wrote: Why doesn't Britain extend the "flashing amber" signal from meaning "you can go if no pedestrians are crossing" to also mean "you can go if no cars are crossing"? Good idea. I'm not entirely sure about using flashing amber, though: rightly or wrongly, people associate amber with 'go' - and, indeed, 'go, quick!' - which is not what you want to say here. Flashing amber is very distinct from a steady amber and the French use the system quite successfully on quiet junctions at night. And the United States, with some slightly different meanings. Late at night, it is not unusual to see lights flashing "yellow" (watch for cross traffic, but you have the right of way) for a major street and red (come to a complete stop and proceed only when it is safe to do so) for a side street. Flashing red for all traffic is the default power-on failure mode for most lights. A single-bulb installation with flashing red is used where needed to emphasize a "stop" sign, since it carries the same meaning. Flashing amber, on its own, can have the same meaning as part of a traffic light, but might have several other meanings, depending on the context. |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
John Rowland wrote:
The traffic lights at Cricklewood Lane / Claremont Road are a particular conundrum, because they only allow about 4 vehicles to emerge from busy Cricklewood Lane before quiet Claremont Road has a full minute of green phase. This has the effect of punishing traffic which sticks to the main Cricklewood Lane, and rewarding traffic which rat-runs down The Vale and Claremont Road or Minster Road and Lichfield Road. Typically in Barnet, the light will have an "off" phase on either red or green depending on how long it takes the engineer to replace the bulbs. There's a few that have been dead for weeks - even with the council being notified. -- Simon Hewison |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"John Wright" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:00:36 +0100, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: "JamesB" wrote in message . .. ... If I can see to the other side of those temp ones (often they are for all of about 10 metres) I'll go through them anyway (if its clear) same as overtaking a parked bus really! Except that it is legal safely to overtake a parked bus, but, contrary to popular belief, you are breaking the law by going through the red at temporary traffic lights. Is there actually a law which covers that? Normally traffic lights are subject to approval by local authorities. These things tend to be set up on different authority for different purposes. Local Authority approval has to do with whether the lights can be set up, not what they mean when they are. That is covered by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, which does not differentiate between the meanings given to temporary and to permanent lights. Colin Bignell |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Ian wrote:
Thanks Nick for the link. So if a cyclist rides across a pedestrian crossing can I legally knock him/her over? If you are a pedestrian, possibly. |
Red lights in Cricklewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Ian" wrote...
"Richard J." wrote in message Nick Finnigan wrote: [ ... ] http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html has an appropriate discussion. It does indeed, and concludes that a person pushing a bike, on a pedestrian crossing anyway, is a pedestrian. "a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'." Thanks Nick for the link. So if a cyclist rides across a pedestrian crossing can I legally knock him/her over? The old chestnut... You still have to drive with due consideration for other road-users (even the ones who, like too many cyclists, have no intention whatever of complying with any aspect of road traffic law they find inconvenient), and you have to drive with due care and attention (ie, you have to stop to avoid a collision if you can). But you are under no obligation to give precedence to anyone illegally cycling across a *pedestrian crossing*, any more than you would have to give way to a motor vehicle being driven across the crossing from footway to footway. |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Ian wrote:
The police no longer enforce the no cycling on the pavement law as can be clearly seen in dft_foi_037604.pdf. In 1984 there were 1991 successful prosecution for cycling on the pavement. By 2003 there were only 82. The facts you advance do not show that at all. They show that the law continues to be enforced. The figures only show that fewer cases are dealt with by the courts. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767111.html (303 082 taking the Glossop line off Dinting Viaduct in 1985) |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Ian wrote:
According to dft_transstats_031373, 214 pedestrians were hit by cyclists, 38 were seriously injured and 4 killed. I don't suppose that those injured and the relatives of those killed by cyclists think that dangerous cycling is as trivial as the police obviously now do. Except that, something like 214 (from memory, around 150) pedestrians were *killed*, on the pavement, by motor vehicles in the same year. Plus many more on the road. And 4 killed by cyclists is unusually high. It's usually about 1. Luckily the police have a slightly better idea of who poses the biggest risk to others than you do. Colin McKenzie |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Ian wrote: According to dft_transstats_031373, 214 pedestrians were hit by cyclists, 38 were seriously injured and 4 killed. I don't suppose that those injured and the relatives of those killed by cyclists think that dangerous cycling is as trivial as the police obviously now do. Except that, something like 214 (from memory, around 150) pedestrians were *killed*, on the pavement, by motor vehicles in the same year. Nope. |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
Or especially at 2 in morning when the side road only goes into a
supermarket. Perhaps councils and the like should be forced to put in intelligent lights that have sensors (and ones that work!) rather than going for the cheap and cheerful fixed phase option. By all means operate fixed timing in peak periods (and the sensor can automatically detect when this is) but having to wait any time at all during the night is stupid. It encourages people to jump, with potentially disasterous results if there are any people wandering about (quite possibly drunk or not quite with it). I also cannot understand why we don't have all lights set on red at night (would be stupid in peak periods). When a car approaches, the appropriate road changes to green. This means there's not even a delay as the other side goes back to red (usually the primary road) and pedestrians don't need to wait if they get there first either. Sweden has always had this (well, at least since I was a kid - and I'm 31), and Denmark have the countdown timer on lights. They've also used LED traffic lights for ages, even though I remember the Highways Agency going on about how good they were a few years ago - and still today we have virtually none in operation (often a secondary light at a junction or roundabout). Illuminated cats eyes have also never taken off, even though the ones near Nazeing, Essex are fantastic (but clearly expensive) and must be a major boost to road safety at night on country roads. The good old UK likes to lag behind, and then we claim to be the first because our new system is slightly improved/different (one extra LED in the light means we're first to have lights with 301 diodes instead of 300). :) Next time Tesco build a new store, or a new retail park opens, I bet any road junction built gets cheap and annoying lights that will continue to hold you up at 2am. If you're really 'lucky', they'll even bung in a Red Light camera to make some money from those who don't want to wait! Jonathan |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... "Richard J." wrote in message .uk... Try reporting it as a fault to http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/ Thanks! No-one bother me for a while, I have a few hundred street faults to report. 6 weeks later, I have to wonder why I bothered, because 5 of the 8 faults I reported have definitely not been fixed, and I'm not sure whether the other 3 have been fixed or not. Presumably this website is another of Blair's initiatives - always look like you're doing something, but never actually do anything. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, John Rowland wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... "Richard J." wrote in message .uk... Try reporting it as a fault to http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/ Thanks! No-one bother me for a while, I have a few hundred street faults to report. 6 weeks later, I have to wonder why I bothered, because 5 of the 8 faults I reported have definitely not been fixed, and I'm not sure whether the other 3 have been fixed or not. Maybe they're waiting for you to get through the rest of the few hundred? :) Presumably this website is another of Blair's initiatives - always look like you're doing something, but never actually do anything. Yes, John, i'm sure Tony Blair himself personally masterminded the TfL street faults website. Where on earth do you get this extraordinary idea that emitting platitudes while doing nothing is a Blair invention? Is this is not what every single human government *ever*, all the way back to the Jericho town council, has done? tom -- Your words are mostly meaningless symbols -- Andrew, to Niall |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li... Where on earth do you get this extraordinary idea that emitting platitudes while doing nothing is a Blair invention? Is this is not what every single human government *ever*, all the way back to the Jericho town council, has done? No. Most governments do nothing because this is cheapest, and people only remember what government does for a short time, but they remember what government costs for a long time. Therefore doing nothing is the best way to get re-elected. But Blair, unlike previous leaders, actively wants to destroy Britain, and has a revulsion for doing anything constructive, even if it could be done for free. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere
John Rowland wrote:
But Blair, unlike previous leaders, actively wants to destroy Britain You may possibly believe that his policies will have the effect of destroying Britain, but "*wants* to destroy Britain"?? What do you base that on? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk