"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 from by
waiting for the amber to go out if it is a flashing pedestrian type of
lights or to stay on if it is a vehicle-junction type of lights?

Why not make it simple and say *all* pedestrian lights have a flashing phase
and *no* vehicle-junction lights have a flashing phase?

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

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.

I know. It's a shame that the whole country doesn't perceive "the
country" in the same way, with some wanting to hark back to a "golden
era" of half a millenium ago. But... shrug they're a very small
minority. Mind you, most of 'em don't even live in the bit they're
referring to.

Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

Always nice to hear a hypocrite being so honest and open about his
hypocrisy.

Have you considered politics as a career? I think you'd be ideally suited.

You're arrogant.
You're inconsistent.
You're a rank hypocrite.
You'd rather hurl abuse than admit a mistake.

I gather Brown's looking for a right-hand man following the weekend's
revelations. You have the perfect qualifications, I'd say.

Steve Firth wrote:
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.
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. Not a man to overstate a case in
order to wind people up (unlike some others...).
Marz Jennings is a name that's new to me.

Roger Thorpe

On Apr 15, 7:38*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:
But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap
between and the next person. It may **** you off, if may scare you, poor
baby, and as stupid as the act may be, it is not directed towards you as a
person. It's not all about you y'know.

You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If
there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet.
Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar.

Quiet doesn't have to mean empty.

Take this old lady who's going to nudge me of my bike if I get too
close to her. She's over on the right hand side of the street, I'm on
the left, she's just hit the button to cross and the lights gone red,
there's no one else around. If I reach the crossing while she's still
on the other side of the road (and there's no police around), I'm
blowing and going.



And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition.

And don't try to come the innocent on this, you've alread shown your
real attitude. And quelle surprise it's the standard "**** on
pedestrians" crap I've come to expect from two-wheeled scum.

I thought '**** on pedestrians' was a driving mantra. Innocent. Me?
Card carrying red light jumper, senior member. No it's too late for me
I'm headin' to hell to drive a Vauxhall Viva for eternity.

Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't
talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and
the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists
who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on
pavements and crossings.


Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers.

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. 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.

"Marz" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 7:38 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:
But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap
between and the next person. It may **** you off, if may scare you, poor
baby, and as stupid as the act may be, it is not directed towards you as
a
person. It's not all about you y'know.

You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If
there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet.
Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar.

Quiet doesn't have to mean empty.

Take this old lady who's going to nudge me of my bike if I get too
close to her. She's over on the right hand side of the street, I'm on
the left, she's just hit the button to cross and the lights gone red,
there's no one else around. If I reach the crossing while she's still
on the other side of the road (and there's no police around), I'm
blowing and going.



And someone cycling at me *is* directed at me, again by definition.

And don't try to come the innocent on this, you've alread shown your
real attitude. And quelle surprise it's the standard "**** on
pedestrians" crap I've come to expect from two-wheeled scum.

I thought '**** on pedestrians' was a driving mantra. Innocent. Me?
Card carrying red light jumper, senior member. No it's too late for me
I'm headin' to hell to drive a Vauxhall Viva for eternity.

Ah, the favourite cyclists' fallacy "tu quoque", again. We weren't
talking about motorists dumbarse. We were talking about pedestrians and
the aggressive, stupid, "get of my ****ign way" behaviour of cyclists
who think that it's perfectly acceptable to ride down pedestrians on
pavements and crossings.


Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers.

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. 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.

=====

So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to
drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the
user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will
hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one
set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set?

I don't believe that pedestrians have right of way over anyone - no-one has
automatic right of way in every circumstance. Rather the right of way varies
depending on position and signing: a pedestrian has right of way over
everyone else on a zebra or Pelican crossing, but nowhere else. A car has
right of way over a bicycle if the car has a green light and the bicycle has
a red light, but the right of way is reversed if it is the bicycle which has
the green light. That doesn't affect the common sense rule that you should
try your damndest to avoid hitting another road user irrespective of who
actually has prioirty.

On Apr 15, 1:43*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.
Like all drivers are peace loving hippies, please!

Can you point me to where anybody said they were, please?

What? Aspersions were cast across cyclists in general and I retaliated
that drivers shouldn't be the ones to cast the first stone. Of course
my assumption that the post was from a driver could be wrong.



It's funny how there are aggressive ****s from all walks of life

There are indeed.

and yet I'll still take the ones on bikes over the ones driving cars.

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
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.

"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. Your
attitude is contemptible.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Marz wrote:

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.

****.

On Apr 15, 9:04*am, "Mortimer" wrote:

So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to
drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the
user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will
hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one
set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set?


No and no. Rules of the road should be rules of the road regardless of
vehicle.

I don't believe that pedestrians have right of way over anyone - no-one has
automatic right of way in every circumstance. Rather the right of way varies
depending on position and signing: a pedestrian has right of way over
everyone else on a zebra or Pelican crossing, but nowhere else. A car has
right of way over a bicycle if the car has a green light and the bicycle has
a red light, but the right of way is reversed if it is the bicycle which has
the green light. That doesn't affect the common sense rule that you should
try your damndest to avoid hitting another road user irrespective of who
actually has prioirty.