Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#211
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , francis wrote:
Ah, another ****wit cyclist who thinks he is above the law. Is he typical or is he the type that give others a bad name? He's the type that gives others a bad name. Is being unable to work that out for yourself typical of uk.transport crossposters, or are you giving the others a bad name? :-) |
#212
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
JNugent writes:
In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too close to be stopped safely"? A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called "judges", appropriately enough. -dan |
#213
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:25:02 +0100
Conor wrote: when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't forget to indicate. Irrelevent. Err , yes , very relevant. Dumb cyclist riding up inside of truck + dumb trucker not indicating = trouble. AND If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate, You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew. I see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path. You mean if an artic goes in a straight line the trailer will too?? My god, these revelations just never stop, I need to go sit down... B2003 |
#214
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes: [ law regarding amber traffic lights:] In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too close to be stopped safely"? A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called "judges", appropriately enough. Post-hoc, you mean? I'll assume you are not using that response as a way of admitting that you don't know. How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very fraction of a second, turned amber? Is it *supposed* to be a guessing game, or are there some rules which you think can be consulted? |
#215
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! Yesterday I approached, on my bike, a junction that had both an approach lane and an Advanced Stop Box. The lights were RED. There was a cyclist in the box, but the first vehicle was a van indicating left. Both myself and another cyclists waited to the rear of the first vehicle. (We we aware that the first vehicle in a Q at lights normally just looks at the light and moves off when they change without looking around). Another van was pulled up along side us. When the lights changed we all moved off. As we reached the junction the van that had been alongside STARTED to indicate left and pulled across our paths. It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are doing the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble} What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used in other Northern European Countries. Then cyclists could approach lights in the provided cycle lanes in the sure knowledge that they wouldn't be trapped by a left turning vehicle as the vehicle lights turned green for motor vehicles. Of course they would still be the odd idiot who would cycle up the inside of a vehicle indicating left AFTER the advance cycle lights have turned green, but in the vast majority of case cyclists would be safer, and it would even be possible for alert cyclists to use an approach lane on the left to correctly position themselves for a right turn at most junctions. Jim Chisholm |
#216
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:51:23 +0100 someone who may be Derek
wrote this:- While laws governing Scotland are passed in England Scotland cannot be a country. Laws governing Greenland are passed in Denmark. The same used to be true of Iceland. If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#217
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
JNugent writes:
Daniel Barlow wrote: JNugent writes: [ law regarding amber traffic lights:] In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too close to be stopped safely"? A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called "judges", appropriately enough. Post-hoc, you mean? It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties. How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very fraction of a second, turned amber? It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask. If a driver wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a remedial course in driving skills. -dan |
#218
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#219
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "J. Chisholm" wrote in message ... It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are doing the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble} That is because many drivers will combine the act of turning the wheel, with the act of flicking the indicator stem :-( |
#220
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country. Just as well they aren't, eh? EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed | London Transport | |||
One-day Travelcard not allowed to be issued more than a week in advance? | London Transport | |||
Should David Cameron be allowed just to pay his £3 again... | London Transport | |||
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere | London Transport | |||
Not Allowed To Use Pre-Pay Oyster For A Paper Ticket At Ticket Office? | London Transport |