David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:18:01 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:-

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.

You were not disagreeing with me on that point, but with someone
else.

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.

There are lots like that in Liverpool - all the way along the A59 (Scotland
Road and extensions) for example.

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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.

No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights.

Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Do they have camera's on all ped crossings?

Camera's what?

Roger Thorpe wrote:

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.

Brian Robertson and "Marz Jennings" have both boasted about terrorising
pedestrians.

Adrian wrote:

(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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.

No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights.

"Cyclists allowed to run red lights."

Don't let the two-sheeled ******* divert the thread into their usual
rants about car drivers being the scum of the earth.

Roger Thorpe wrote:

JNugent 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.

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.

Touché!

I suggest we both re-interpret those posts in the light of the above.

On Apr 15, 1:40*am, Adrian wrote:
So is this a uniquely bicycle set of affairs, or are you quite happy for
other vehicles to ignore red lights that don't suit them, too?


No, uniquely me on a bicycle and no.

But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap
between and the next person.

Thought you only did it on clear junctions? Or are you psychic, and able
to divine the intentions of every other cyclist on the roads?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
(Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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.

No, the subject is vehicle users jumping red lights.

The subject is *cyclists* jumping red lights - "Cyclists allowed to run red
lights?". Now bicycles are a type of vehicle - I'll give you that - but they
are one specific type of vehicle. Stay on the subject and don't digress onto
other (motorised) types of vehicle.

"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"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!"

Or more accurately "stop if you can and it's safe to do so". If you want
amber to be treated as stop, then what light do you want to use as the
several-second warning that the lights are going to change from green to
amber?

On 15 Apr 2009 12:32:11 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

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?

The legal/constitutional arrangements of the USA and the UK are
somewhat different, despite much of the USA legal system having been
inherited from the British Isles. Trying to equate them is not a
convincing argument.

The clue, a large clue, is in the name United Kingdom. There was a
union of crowns, under the Scottish King James VI. However, that did
not mean that the three countries disappeared, England, Scotland and
Ireland [1]. Wales had been partly absorbed by England long before
and is best thought of as a Principality, the official name, not the
least because Wales generally had princes (what one might call
chieftains), rather than one king, until the English invasion.
Northern Ireland is a Province, formed from part of Ireland. Two
countries, one principality, one province.

Unions of parliaments and the question of where government was
located were separate issues at separate times. For brevity I have
left out the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

Like any relationship there can be separate ideas on some subjects.
That is good, but it becomes tiresome when some sulk as Little
Englanders do from time to time. Having different ideas on some
subject does not necessarily mean a desire to break the
relationship.

It is a pity education on this sort of thing is so poor, especially
in England. The UK does not have a one size fits all solution
imposed from above.

This is not unique. Norway, Sweden and Denmark did at one time have
a union of kings, originally under a Norwegian King. The Swedish
emblem of three crowns is an echo of this [2], as is the common
travel area. The union of parliaments was a separate process. After
much talk, arguments over language, unrest, wars and near wars
prevented by great statesmanship, all three countries have separate
crowns and parliaments, but they were always three countries, no
matter what the arrangements for kings and parliaments.


[1] I know the union with Ireland came later.

[2] probably. There are other stories of why it was created.




--
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