Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#131
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#132
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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. |
#133
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Do they have camera's on all ped crossings? Camera's what? |
#134
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#135
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#136
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#137
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#138
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#139
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? |
#140
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |