Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed | London Transport | |||
One-day Travelcard not allowed to be issued more than a week in advance? | London Transport | |||
Should David Cameron be allowed just to pay his £3 again... | London Transport | |||
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere | London Transport | |||
Not Allowed To Use Pre-Pay Oyster For A Paper Ticket At Ticket Office? | London Transport |