Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

Ah. So you freely admit that you will cycle across a pedestrian crossing
- and you've previously used the figure of 20mph - even if it's in use by
pedestrians at the time, as long as you deem it to be "quiet".

Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between
pedestrians?

Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers.

I won't.

Anybody who, whilst in charge of ANY vehicle, goes through a red light is
- at best - not ****ing looking.

If they do so _deliberately_, in the full knowledge that it's red and
that there's pedestrians on the crossing, then they should be charged
with dangerous driving. Not careless driving.

If they then boast about and try to justify it, then they're a prize ****
of the highest order.

Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

But you've repeatedly said that you do it, and attempted to justify it.

The only way your answers can be viewed as even slightly consistent is if
you also regard yourself as an arrogant **** who is a danger to others.

Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

frames post

Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

Which - specific - bit of that do you have a problem with?

"Conor" wrote in message
...
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?

It's just part of a natural selection process to weed out those lacking in
intelligence.
I only feel sorry for the lorry driver.

On 15 Apr 2009 16:15:06 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

Which - specific - bit of that do you have a problem with?

Whilst I am in no way supporting Marz - I think he is a menace and
danger and will make things worse for all cyclists and deserves to
be caught and dissuaded from continuing in his blow through crossings
at 20+ mph - I have a problem with the "should keep over to the left
to make it as easy as possible for faster to overtake them safely".
Very often what is safest for the cyclist is not to be as far over
to the left as Mortimer wants, in fact the safest position is often
the primary position. Of course a cyclist should be considerate and
not unduly hold up a stream of traffic but it should be up to the
cyclist to decide when it is safe and appropriate to move to secondary
position.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Apr 15, 11:12*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

But you've repeatedly said that you do it, and attempted to justify it.

The only way your answers can be viewed as even slightly consistent is if
you also regard yourself as an arrogant **** who is a danger to others.

I do not attempt to justify any of my actions. I may describe what I
do and explain why, but not as some vague attempt to justify it. Yours
and probably most folk's perception that I'm a danger to others is not
a view I share.

Hyperthetically, you've just stepped off the road onto the pavement at
a crossing that's still red. I'm waiting at the light (I do that
sometimes) and as you step off the road, before the lights goes green
I'm off. Why do you care?

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:43:15 +0100
"0.0" wrote:



"Conor" wrote in message
...
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?

It's just part of a natural selection process to weed out those lacking in
intelligence.
I only feel sorry for the lorry driver.

While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers
arn't immune from forgetting to indicate.

B2003

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.

Marz wrote:

Aspersions were cast across cyclists in general and I retaliated
that drivers shouldn't be the ones to cast the first stone.

The discussion was about cyslists refusing to give way to pedestrians.
i.e. behaving in exactly the way you say you behave.

Of course my assumption that the post was from a driver could be wrong.

All of your assumptions have been wrong to date. Why would you change
the habits of a lifetime?