Steve Firth said:If that was your point, why didn't you make, or attempt to make that
point? Indeed why, since you claim to be aware that you were quoting an
answer given by someone else in response to a question by someone else
give at the least a message ID so that th post in question could be
found? Indeed why didn't you at the very least give the correct name of
the person making the observation that you refer to?
I apologise for assuming that you would have read Pete's post. I
should, and do, know better.
Quoted message said:The "anser" given was not obvious,
The fact remains that the answer should be obvious to anyone experienced
at cycling on British roads. Anyone without that experience should be
cautious about offering advice on cycling safety.
To return to the original subject of this thread for a moment, that's
how PS first made himself known on urc. Several years ago he started
posting "cycle safety" tips here, making it quite clear in the process
that he was not a cyclist and knew nothing about how to cycle safely.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Motorists, IME, have a habit of going through red lights.
In my experience, that's a load of bollocks. I do see many vehicles
ignoring red lights. Two wheels, powered by the rider, oblivious to the
colour red.
I see POBs going through red lights maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks, or
any time I go into a city centre. I see motorists doing so nearly every
day on my way to and from work.
Quoted message said:Does that ring any bells (like the ones that should be
fitted to the bicycle but are not?)
Do you have any reference to bikes requiring bells? While bicycles
supplied complete in the UK are required to have bells at point of sale,
and while I wouldn't choose to ride without one, there is no requirement
in this country for cycles to be fitted with bells in use.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:When a set of lights changes to red it is rare not to see at least 2 cars,
and often 3 or 4, accelerating through (not to mention the 1 or 2 who
should have stopped on amber but didn't).
Which part of the world is this,
Anywhere in Kent, Sussex, Somerset or South Gloucestershire, IME over
many years of walking, cycling and driving (it's more noticeable while
walking and cycling, just as bad behaviour by POBs is more noticeable
while walking and driving).
Quoted message said:and do you have any independent
witnesses to these events,
See past threads on urc for discussion of this behaviour around the
country. Other than that, a stand-up routine I recently saw on BBC1 by
Jo Brand (IIRC) indicated that similar behaviour is common enough in
London to have been recognised by the audience.
Quoted message said:or possibly a reference to the large number
of police prosecutions that must follow these events?
Have you ever tried to get the police to take an interest in motoring
offences? They really don't care :-(
Quoted message said:And you are aware that stopping for an amber light depends very much on
the position of the vehicle at the time? That is the purpose of the
amber light to warn drivers at a safe stopping distance to stop, and to
permit drivers committed to pass through the lights to do so saely and
legally.
Amber means stop if it is safe to do so. It does not mean, as most
motorists seem to believe, that you should put your foot down to try and
get through before it goes red.
To quote the current HC:
"AMBER means 'Stop' at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER
appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that
to pull up might cause an accident."
Quoted message said:The use of the word "frequently" causes me problems. I do not approve of
anyone ignoring red lights. However I do not see red light offences
"frequently"
I will repeat that I see it most days while cycling to and from work.
Quoted message said:It's beginning to look as if you don't understand the use of amber
lights. And it also looks as if you fear something that doesn't happen.
Quoted message said:It's been known to happen,
I'm sure you will be able to provide a reference to it happening then.
See past urc threads.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:That doesn't answer the question at hand, though.
No, so one wonders why you bothered.
Because it was relevant to what followed.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Second, and in answer to your question, a cyclist sat at traffic lights
may be unable to proceed when the lights change to green because of
cross-traffic still going through (typically at high speed) on red. If
you think he should go anyway, take a good look at HC rule 176.
Umm hmm and any drivers would also be unable to proceed in this event.
What's your point?
The point is clear if you read:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If there is an HGV behind the cyclist then its physical presence allows
it to push in this situation and "encourage" the RLJ's to stop.
Steve, I usually ignore posts cross-posted to uk.rec.driving or
uk.transport. Part of the reason I responded to your post was that I
recognised your name from past cross-posted threads and was under the
impression that you were a man who could be reasoned with. I hope I was
right.
This is my third post in the cross-posted part of this thread. I am
generally of the opinion in usenet that if you can't get your point
across in 3 posts then you won't get it across in 300. So it's likely,
though not certain, that it will also be my last.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
