In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

But what about pedestrians? A silly woman stopped in the road in front
of me this morning near the British Museum, exactly on top of a
painted cycle symbol and blocking the gap between two bollards
marking the start of the cycle route I was entering. I rang my bell
as I approached. She just smiled sweetly. Eventually it dawned on
her to think where she was and stand somewhere else in the middle of
the road. Grrr!

Shared-use cycle paths on pavements aren't "out of bounds" to
pedestrians. They're merely available to cyclists as well as
pedestrians. She had as much right to be there as you did.

Whatever. This was a bollarded roadway, not a shared use path. In any case
the term I used was lack of "consideration for other road users".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember even _hearing
of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant cyclist

waves I have. Kinda.

Baker St, London - some arrogant ****bubble tried to go tonking at
undiminished speed through red lights and across a pedestrian crossing.
Except it was a bit full of pedestrians. One of whom, a largish chap -
straight-armed the ****wit. Once Marz untangled himself from his bicycle
and got up, he came charging into the crowd swinging at anybody and
everybody whilst hurling abuse.

As the plastic plods came running, I had the great and personal pleasure
of telling one of them exactly what had precipitated the incident.

He was last seen on the pavement being sat on by one of them whilst the
other handcuffed him. Much chuckling was heard.

Well, okay, there's an exception to every rule. But I still think
there's a hell of a lot more 'report of RLJing car reg no. ABC123' over
'knobhead on bike beaten by passers-by'.

On the other hand, I appear to have got away with having a complete
mindfreeze and not remembering how to spell a word in my original post,
simply by deliberately mangling it, so things can't be all bad

Marz wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:58 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is.
No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing
way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at
all times.
There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to
cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you
to do exactly that.

I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way
is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress.
I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the
rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too.
And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are.

What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not
making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be
or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think
you can take me or not is immaterial.

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

Funny, I didn't read that into it. What I _did_ read it as was "if you
endanger ME while infringing said traffic law, don't be surprised if
some violence befalls you". See the subtle difference there? Not 'random
rule-breaker', but 'person putting me at risk'.

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

Neither does he, when he sobers up. (Rare as that might be)

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

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.

Sorry, they are dangerous because they either don't have under-run
protection like other vehicles or it provides inadequate protection. I've
seen too many entirely innocent cyclists and pedestrians killed by them,
like one tourist pedestrian on the pavement on a gently curved junction
(so no excuse for mounting the kerb) in central Cambridge a year or two
back.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Daniel Barlow wrote:
"Mortimer" writes:

It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber
because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an

TSRGD 2002 para 36

(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at
the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g),
the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall
not proceed beyond the stop line;

[...]

(e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same
prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle
which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped
without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same
indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown
immediately before it;

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.

No, it conveys the same prohibition, but it is not the same offence.

Mortimer wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

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.

Ah. OK. How do the installers decide which type of pedestrian lights to
install and how do road users know which type are being used - apart

Puffins should not have flashing amber, because of the way they are
supposed to work.

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

Sorry, they are dangerous because they either don't have under-run
protection like other vehicles or it provides inadequate protection.
I've seen too many entirely innocent cyclists and pedestrians killed by
them, like one tourist pedestrian on the pavement on a gently curved
junction (so no excuse for mounting the kerb) in central Cambridge a
year or two back.

That's still not the vehicle's fault, though.

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he
regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.


Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

If you had been reading this group (URC)for a while you would have read
responses that condemned red light jumping, riding on the pavement,
riding while intoxicated, riding without lights etc etc etc.
At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted
attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it, Doug's attempts to stir up
controversy and a boneheaded series of arguments about helmets where
neither side will let go.
What we've got now is overreaction, overstatement and wilful
misunderstanding and an absence of people who want to discuss the joys
of self propelled travel. I hope that it will calm down soon.

Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably
admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC
regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.
He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who
considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.
But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

I'm not so sure that you do. He has certainly revelled in the
controversy on more than one newsgroup, sometimes 'gleefully'.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he
regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.

The reason he gets 'beaten with a stick' could be related to his very
open hatred (no, thats not an exaggeration) of private cars and/or their
drivers. Since he insists on being so deliberately confrontational, I
think its churlish to call those who respond in similarly 'robust'
fashion trolls. Perhaps you should read more of Googles comprehensive
posting history on him and then re-evaluate your viewpoint?