On Apr 15, 9:29*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Marz" wrote in message

...
On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote:

Still, at least there's nice easy ways to
identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you
think you can get away with it, isn't it? Would you be a "card-carrying
red light jumper" if you had a registration plate and licence to lose?
No, thought not. You're a typical bully - trying to hide your cowardice
behind a veneer of bluster.

Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that
as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may
attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do
want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my
arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping
lights.

====

If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have number
plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get
away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous.

Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of
paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing
road I can shove it in their face.

Your attitude is contemptible.

Thank you, one does try.

In article ,
(Mortimer) wrote:

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.

All new crossings for pedestrians are the Puffin type and those for
cyclists and pedestrians are the Toucan type, neither of which have
flashing phases any more as the Elfin Safety ninnies think it's too
dangerous for us. The traffic signals have the same phases as normal
junction signals have.

They don't seem to be in any hurry to convert the older types, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

*Subject:* Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
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?

No, just the ones that admit that the vehicles they are attached to are
too dangerous to mix with vulnerable road users. Cyclists and pedestrians
regularly get killed by vehicles that have nothing to stop such users
being dragged under their wheels. Why such dangerous construction is
allowed in this day and age is beyond me. It's even a problem for smaller
cars in some cases. Look at A14 accident reports.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:58:49 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

"Cyclists may legally be able to go through red traffic lights
under plans being considered in London.
"More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve
cyclists being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for
London (TfL) said."

Two things:

(a) Boris isn't TaL, and
(b) it doesn't stand a chance of being enacted by Parliament, as it
would mean that there were two completely different rules in force
in the UK.

I think that you are wrong on both counts.

(a) About the only thing Boris does have executive control over is
TfL.
(b) In a year or a little over a year Parliament could be filled with
Boris' pals. Besides, it may not require Parliament approval - a
little white paint on the road defining a mandatory cycle lane
without a stop line for left turning cyclists is all that should be
required. Junctions like that already exist in the UK, albeit with
the cycle lane bumping up onto the pavement past the lights.

Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together?
But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop
line, other cycles could be using the road.

In the "solution" proposed above by TC, the route would not be
through a red light, and as a system, it could only be put into
place at enormous cost for the works necessary (and would probably
never be extended to all lights for that reason).

The reports speak of "going through red lights", not "being
provided with an alternative route not subject to lights".

That's a different matter altogether.

We have red lights in Cambridge with a green light showing only a cycle
symbol attached so cyclists can always go at bus gates.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Marz" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 9:29 am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Marz" wrote in message

...
On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote:

Still, at least there's nice easy ways to
identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you
think you can get away with it, isn't it? Would you be a "card-carrying
red light jumper" if you had a registration plate and licence to lose?
No, thought not. You're a typical bully - trying to hide your cowardice
behind a veneer of bluster.

Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that
as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may
attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do
want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my
arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping
lights.

====

If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have
number
plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get
away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous.

Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of
paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing
road I can shove it in their face.

===

Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to
get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally
segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and
pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles
in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights
and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any
preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines.
Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are
slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as
easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely.

In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to
motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
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.

The recent posts from "Marz", who to me at least is a new one, have
suggested that he would do more damage to a ped who deliberately shoulder
charged him than he would suffer himself. Is this what you refer to as
"terrorising pedestrians"? The general attitude and content of Marz's posts
about red light jumping at non-busy crossings have already suggested that he
may be a bit of an arse, and probably thought of one by many URC regulars.
Why would you want to make things up, or at least deliberately
mis-interpret, if you didn't want to exaggerate the misdeeds of a few
cyclists purely in order to create divisions? OK, so I know this is usenet
and trying to be the most opinionated arse around seems to be the raison
d'être for many posting here.
If I've got this wrong, then please post the examples of boasts of
"terrorising pedestrians". For the same reason as Roger, I may have missed
them.

Colin

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:15:54 +0100
"Mortimer" wrote:

Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they
are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to
make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them
safely.

You seem to be confusing easy overtaking with safe overtaking ...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090415161924.2c3527e8@bluemoon...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:15:54 +0100
"Mortimer" wrote:

Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they
are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to
make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them
safely.

You seem to be confusing easy overtaking with safe overtaking ...

There is no reason why safe and easy have to be mutually exclusive. If there
is space for a car to give me a few feet of clearance (the same as they'd
give the offside of another car that they were overtaking) then that's fine.

I've not found that cars try to overtake unsafely by passing very closely to
me. Maybe my experiences differ from other cyclists'.

On Apr 15, 10:15*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Marz" wrote in message

...
On Apr 15, 9:29 am, "Mortimer" wrote:



"Marz" wrote in message

....
On Apr 15, 1:43 am, Adrian wrote:

Still, at least there's nice easy ways to
identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you
think you can get away with it, isn't it? Would you be a "card-carrying
red light jumper" if you had a registration plate and licence to lose?
No, thought not. You're a typical bully - trying to hide your cowardice
behind a veneer of bluster.

Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that
as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may
attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do
want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my
arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping
lights.

====

If ever there was a justification for cyclists being required to have
number
plates, your attitude provides it. You flout the law because you can get
away with it and make it sound like a virtue that you are anonymous.

Great, give me the plate, give me the license, give me the piece of
paper. So next time some dick in a car tells me to get off the ****ing
road I can shove it in their face.

===

Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to
get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally
segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and
pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles
in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights
and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any
preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines.
Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are
slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as
easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely.

In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to
motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling.

Aye 'n' there's the rub. Use the road, follow the rules, but stay out
of my way.

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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?

No, just the ones that admit that the vehicles they are attached to are
too dangerous to mix with vulnerable road users.

There's nothing inherently "dangerous" about HGVs. They don't hide behind
traffic lights before jumping out to savage innocent cyclists.

They only pose a danger to those who don't think whilst around them.