Marz wrote:

I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about
*their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their
interaction with pedestrians.

Like all drivers are peace loving hippies, please!

We're not talking about drivers, we're talking about pedestrians and
****s on bikes. Why *do* cyclists jump to accusing motorists every time
someone points out that cyclists have a stupid, ignorant and aggressive
attitude towards people walking from A to B?

Marz wrote:

But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap
between and the next person. It may **** you off, if may scare you, poor
baby, and as stupid as the act may be, it is not directed towards you as a
person. It's not all about you y'know.

You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If
there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet.
Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar.

And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition.

And don't try to come the innocent on this, you've alread shown your
real attitude. And quelle surprise it's the standard "**** on
pedestrians" crap I've come to expect from two-wheeled scum.

I thought '**** on pedestrians' was a driving mantra. Innocent. Me?
Card carrying red light jumper, senior member. No it's too late for me
I'm headin' to hell to drive a Vauxhall Viva for eternity.

Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't
talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and
the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists
who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on
pavements and crossings.

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is.

David Hansen wrote:

However, in this country

You're perfectly welcome to it, and to keep your comment to that
country. In fact I insist.

Daniel Barlow wrote:

Adrian writes:

I'd prefer there weren't any. Still, at least there's nice easy ways to
identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you

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"

Both you and Adrian have allowed yourself to be hijacked by the usual
cyclists' "tu quoque". The subject is not motorists jumping red lights,
it is cyclists jumping red lights. For some reason the cyclists seem to
want to ignore this inconvenient truth.

Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about
*their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their
interaction with pedestrians.

Your error here is to group all cyclists as a homogeneous group. The
cyclists trying to improve safety are not the same as the aggressive
pedestrian intimidating ones.

I have no reason to believe that your statements are correct. I've
worked with keen cyclists who bang on and on and on and on and on...
about cycling, safety and provision for cyclists. They do so to the
point of having had showers installed at work so that the poor dears can
get some of the stink off before starting work. Of course this provision
is hugely subsidised and AFAICS not one of them is capable of leaving
the place clean after use. They all seem to have mothers who follow them
around picking up the trail of socks, lycra, towels and bumfluff as they
proceed along dropping stuff where they stand.

Anyway catch them at their desk, or more likely get cornered by them and
find oneself unable to escape and they'll bang on for hours about their
two pet subject - how much they spent on a bike, and endless tales of
their interactions with "dangerous motorists" and on and on about their
safety.

Then I see the same individuals on the road. On roads like the Great
West Road, where despite the cycle lanes being (a) present and (b)
marked appropriately to indicate that one keeps to the appropriate side
of the road (north side east bound, south side west bound) these
individuals simply cycle as they wish against the flow of traffic more
often than not. They also swerve at silly speed across the width of a
four-lane road and ignore all red lights and Give Way signs. On the
canal towpath they ride flat out at pedestrians screaming and ringing
their stupid little bells.

So they're lying hypocrites and I suspect that the vast majority of
cyclists are the same, because every one that I have met who tells me
they're not like that I have subsequently observed to be exactly like
that.

On the few occasions that a survey has been done, it supports my view
that the overwhelming majority of cyclists are red-light jumpers.

Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this
country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the
case.

Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I
presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses
somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country?

Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to
where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the
(sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC).

Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom.

They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. The clue
is in the the fact that they have different names and different legal
structures.

Ah, right. So California and Florida are different countries, too?

I've found places named California in both England (near Caister on Sea) and
Scotland (near Falkirk) but not anywhere named Florida.

On Apr 15, 1:40*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. 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.

points to yellow box containing camera

Do they have camera's on all ped crossings?

Adrian wrote:

Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where
you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly
truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC).

Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom.

Yes but Hansen lives in the 19th century and the past is a foreign
country.

Nugent wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about
*their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their
interaction with pedestrians.

Your error here is to group all cyclists as a homogeneous group. The
cyclists trying to improve safety are not the same as the aggressive
pedestrian intimidating ones.
Roger Thorpe

That's not quite true, is it?

Some who post here boast of their prowess at terrorising pedestrians on
footways.

I suppose that both of our statements here are open to misinterpretation.
I didn't mean that nobody who advocates safe cycling or posts on this
newsgroup ever rides on the pavement.
And I assume you didn't mean that someone on this newsgroup really
boasts of terrorising pedestrians. At least, that's what I hope you
meant, since I've pushed the 'mark all as read' button a few times recently.
Roger Thorpe

"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Unless the vehicle is too close to be
stopped safely, it's the same offence as going through on red.

I can still hear my driving instructor from 40 years ago saying "Amber.
Means. Stop!"

Ian