"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...
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"

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 amber
phase before red is that it gives adequate warning so vehicles can stop
before the red light. The HC says that you should *try* not to go through an
amber light if there is sufficient time to stop for it and doing so would
not cause an accident, but does not say that it is an offence (sorry, I
can't quite chapter and verse for this).

Consider a car that is travelling towards a green light at (for example) 20
mph. When the car is 3 yards from the lights, they change to amber. Should
that driver be expected to stop in the remaining distance?

Graculus wrote:

Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources.

So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and
thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is
cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how
many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial
"green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's
approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle
crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way,
blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality?

Quite barmy!

would i fear encourage more of the nervy to filter left, into the danger
zone of HGV's as it is cycle lanes try to do their best to encourage
bikes into the danger points....

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Steve Firth wrote:

Adrian wrote:

Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old
lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately - because
you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed.

Some Lycra loon tried to run down somebody I know who works in the City
a few years ago. The Lycra loon came off worst in the encounter, despite
thinking at the time that he was big enough and hard enough to
intimidate a man in a suit.

I think it's about time that pedestrians claimed our space back from
these louts. I had one of them shouting at me on Sunday as he tried to
ride me down on the pavement in Camden. He got very ****ed off when I
weaved to block his path but ended up having to get off the pavement and
into the road where he belonged.

even as a lycra lout my self, i do find the fact that if walking, one
allways has to take the longest route, lights that you could die of old
age before the change etc, as as you say some cyclist when they are the
big fast traffic are far from considerate.

We did however have to do through the phases of "tinkle tinkle", "Oy Get
Out Of My Way!" and "**** OFF OUT OF THE ****ING WAY" before the penny
dropped that I didn't give a toss about how loud he shouted. How do the
******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Steve Firth wrote:
Phil Bradshaw ke
wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down
regardless?

Yes
holds up hearing aids and points to last week's bruises

Ah, OK. *******s.

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.

Last week's bozo was one of those. Apparently it was my fault for being
on the pavement with my back to him.

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"

And even then, the cameras only get RLJ and speeding. The more general
offences of "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit",
"driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and
almost entirely unprosecuted. Assuming the goal is to improve standards
of road use (rather than e.g. to appease the Daily Mail reader) I really
can't see that registration plates on bikes is really going to have that
much effect.


-dan

I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete
tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and
almost entirely prosecuted.
I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users.

--
Tony the Dragon

"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.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36


-dan

Tony Dragon writes:

I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete
tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked
and
almost entirely prosecuted.
I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users.

Indeed. Largely irrespective of whether their vehicles have
registration markings, too.


-dan

Daniel Barlow gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete
tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked
and almost entirely prosecuted.
I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users.

Indeed. Largely irrespective of whether their vehicles have
registration markings, too.

Largely, but not entirely.

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Tony Dragon writes:

Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together?

A mandatory cycle lane is a lane in which other types of vehicle are not
allowed, and is marked by a solid white line at its edge. As distinct
from the other kind ("discretionary?" "optional?" can't remember the
word) which has a dashed line and in which you are allowed to drive if
you feel like it.

I'm not particularly wild about the idea as they will inevitably be
painted in the gutter and so encourage gutter cycling. I do wonder,
though, if the planned law changes for ASLs (to make it legal for cycles
to enter the reservoir without using the suicide lane) could also be
used to permit left-turn-on-red for cyclists.

But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop line,
other cycles could be using the road.

A "give way" marking would suffice for that.


-dan

Exactly my point, but you would have to educate all road users about the
new rules, putting up signs at each junction where this is allowed would
just add to the clutter of signs, any ideas?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/...06_228x283.jpg

--
Tony the Dragon

In article , Marc says...
Conor wrote:
In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7-
, MIG says...

Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill
them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe
bet that they would be paying attention.

Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the
inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even
though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being
crushed?

Was that part of your witness statement?

No, just that of everyone who saw the incident. The woman deliberately
placed herself in danger. The lorry was already part way through the
manouvre when the braindead bitch decided she couldn't be arsed to wait
and went up the inside of the lorry.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams