On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:14:31PM +0100, Conor wrote:
In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7-
, MIG says...
Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill
them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe
bet that they would be paying attention.
Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the
inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even
though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being
crushed?

This no doubt also explains the cyclist who tried to kill me as I was
getting off a bus a coupla weeks ago. They spend so much time looking
for people who are *trying* to kill them (of whom there are
approximately zero) that they don't bother to look out for people who
might accidentally kill them (most drivers), people who might kill them
because the cyclist did something stupid (the driver of that artic), or
people who they might kill (me).

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

You may now start misinterpreting what I just
wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:53:24PM +0100, Marc wrote:

16 stone, 20 mph....

Sounds like a nice game of rugby.

Would the 23 stone fella step in front of a car doing 5mph?

Absolutely. At 5mph a car can stop pretty much dead. I do it
frequently when crossing roads that are just crawling along.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often.
Purely for purposes of prevention, of course.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:20:52PM -0700, Marz wrote:

But there's a
double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's
a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number
plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in
seconds.

Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore
able to empathise with one road user than the other?

No, it's because very few car drivers jump red lights, fewer do it
deliberately, and fewer still do it regularly. Which is really rather
different from cyclists, at least in London.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Sobol's Law of Telecom Utilities:
Telcos are malicious; cablecos are simply clueless.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:06:21PM +0100, David Hansen wrote:

I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to
their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey
the law?

Certainly. You need to bear in mind, though, that except under very
limited circumstances, pedestrians are allowed to cross the road
wherever and whenever they please.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

The Law of Daves: in any gathering of technical people, the
number of Daves will be greater than the number of women.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:27:09PM -0500, wrote:

Lorries that have warning signs against cycles passing them on the inside
are admitting that they are not safe to be allowed on the roads.

Does this apply to all warning signs, or just to those possessed by
people who you don't like?

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

Anyone willing to give up a little fun for tolerance deserves neither

On 15 Apr 2009 09:39:32 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

That's because somebody decided it'd be a REALLY good idea to get rid of
TrafPol in favour of cameras.

Really. That will be why the Edinburgh Evening news had this article
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Police-target-vehicles-unfit-for.4884038.jp


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:44:42 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:-

Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't
even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three
seconds of red, because "everyone does that"

It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber
because this is not actually an offence.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first
three seconds of red" bit of the posting.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

That's because somebody decided it'd be a REALLY good idea to get rid of
TrafPol in favour of cameras.

Really. That will be why the Edinburgh Evening news had this article
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/ed...rget-vehicles-
unfit-for.4884038.jp

You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:04:47 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:-

There seems to be a small minority of cyclists who are so arrogant that they
think that they do not need to stop for anything, ever. They give the vast
majority of safe, courteous cyclists a bad name.

One could say the same thing about any other group of road users.
However, it is usually cyclists who are lumped together by those
with no better arguments.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:44:42 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:-

Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't
even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three
seconds of red, because "everyone does that"

It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber
because this is not actually an offence.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first
three seconds of red" bit of the posting.

I didn't mention it because I was taking it as read that going through a red
light, even in the first three seconds, is an offence - I wasn't diasgreeing
with you in that. What I was disagreeing with was your implication that
*all* cases of going through amber lights were offences: you didn't
distinguish between the case where a car has plenty of time to stop at the
amber light and the case where a car is too close to the lights to stop.

By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a pedestrian
crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that these always had a
flashing amber phase between red and green, during which it was legal for
cars to set off or drive across providing the crossing was clear of
pedestrians. I was surprised the other day to find a pedestrian-only
crossing where the lights went to solid amber instead of flashing amber.