Slagging off cyclists article.

Quoted message said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If (the Americanism?) "run" means "pass at red just as though they
were green", that's nonsense and you know it. I wouldn't even say that
the majority of cyclists do that - just the majority of cyclists in
Inner London and a rising proportion in some other places.

Quoted message said:

Unless we're including "pass at red because it's only just turned red
and we think we can squeeze through", which seems to be a common
practice in all kinds of vehicles, I'd be very surprised if it were the
majority even in Inner London (which I shall define somewhat arbitrarily
as the congestion charge zone).

Two points:

(a) I deliberately distinguish drivers "shaving the red and amber"
from those going through a red as if it were green (ie, as though it
didn't apply at all). Going through on red and amber is legal (certain
conditions applying) and because none of us are blessed with sight of
the future, there will always be a few who, wanting to use the utmost
capacity of the sequence, either misjudge the remaining length of red
and amber - or don't care enough to try to judge it. There will also
be some who will go through at red, regardless, but that's a very
small number/proportion of motor vehicles. Conversely, most drivers
don't start to move quickly at the other end of the sequence. Being
(say) tenth vehicle from the lights can be a chancy business - it's
entirely possible not to get through on the next green at many London
junctions. Shaving the red and amber at least reflects a nodding
acknowledgement of the fact that red means stop. If "shaving the red
and amber" was what cyclists confined themselves to, I don't believe
there would be any criticism of them vis a vis traffic lights.

(b) I would define "Inner London" as Central London and all of the
area of the immediately adjacent boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Lewisham
(Deptford), Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea,
Camden, Islington and Hackney. Just about the area of the old
LCC/ILEA, but I'm not sure that you could legitimately include
Greenwich (which was part of LCC/ILEA).

Quoted message said:

My best guess is that about half of the cyclists I see will go through
red lights if there is nothing coming the other way (i.e. treating them
as if they were "stop" or "give way" signs), a small number
(stereotypical courier) will go through in "confrontational" fashion -
aware that other traffic is present but expecting to force it into
yielding right of way, and a very small number (stereotypical
"pedestrian on bike"😉 will sail through oblivious. Those are fairly
vague numbers because the cyclists I have most exposure to are generally
the ones on the same road as me and moving at the same speed - it may be
that there are vast numbers of 7mph pootlers all riding with a reckless
disregard for road safety but I never notice except when overtaking
them. But if they're the people that make this menace to society,
"lycra lout" is a total mischaracterisation.

That sounds substantially in agreement with what I wrote.

On 10 Nov,

JNugent said:

Going through on red and amber is legal (certain
conditions applying) and because none of us are blessed with sight of
the future, there will always be a few who, wanting to use the utmost
capacity of the sequence, either misjudge the remaining length of red
and amber - or don't care enough to try to judge it.

Going through red is *always* illegal. If an amber is showing as well it was
previously on red. If an amber is showing on its own then it follows a green,
you are allowed to proceed but not if it has changed to red. The amber gives
warning that red is imminent and you should stop if it is safe.

At *no* time is it legal to pass red, and adequate warning is given of it
changing to red.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 10 Nov,

JNugent said:

Going through on red and amber is legal (certain
conditions applying) and because none of us are blessed with sight of
the future, there will always be a few who, wanting to use the utmost
capacity of the sequence, either misjudge the remaining length of red
and amber - or don't care enough to try to judge it.

Going through red is *always* illegal. If an amber is showing as well it was
previously on red. If an amber is showing on its own then it follows a green,
you are allowed to proceed but not if it has changed to red. The amber gives
warning that red is imminent and you should stop if it is safe.

At *no* time is it legal to pass red, and adequate warning is given of it
changing to red.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

burtthebike said:

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

45mph in a 30 zone deserves six points, if anyone is stupid enough to
do that speed twice they bloody well need to be banned from the
roads.

Don't disagree with anything you say Spindrift, apart from the above.
Anyone doing 45 in a 30 zone should lose their licence. Just think,
that would get rid of so many of the arrogant, incompetent drivers at
a stroke!

Considering that 45 will be showing as closer to 50 on the speedo there's no
excuse for it.

--

Nigel

burtthebike said:

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

45mph in a 30 zone deserves six points, if anyone is stupid enough to
do that speed twice they bloody well need to be banned from the
roads.

Don't disagree with anything you say Spindrift, apart from the above.
Anyone doing 45 in a 30 zone should lose their licence. Just think,
that would get rid of so many of the arrogant, incompetent drivers at
a stroke!

Considering that 45 will be showing as closer to 50 on the speedo there's no
excuse for it.

--

Nigel

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

If (the Americanism?) "run" means "pass at red just as though they
were green", that's nonsense and you know it. I wouldn't even say
that the majority of cyclists do that - just the majority of cyclists
in Inner London and a rising proportion in some other places.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My best guess is that about half of the cyclists I see will go through
red lights if there is nothing coming the other way [...] a small number
(stereotypical courier) will go through in "confrontational" fashion -
aware that other traffic is present but expecting to force it into
yielding right of way, and a very small number (stereotypical
"pedestrian on bike"😉 will sail through oblivious.

Quoted message said:

That sounds substantially in agreement with what I wrote.

Ah, you had confused me with your use of "the majority of cyclists" to
mean "a very small number". Silly me.

-dan

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

If (the Americanism?) "run" means "pass at red just as though they
were green", that's nonsense and you know it. I wouldn't even say
that the majority of cyclists do that - just the majority of cyclists
in Inner London and a rising proportion in some other places.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My best guess is that about half of the cyclists I see will go through
red lights if there is nothing coming the other way [...] a small number
(stereotypical courier) will go through in "confrontational" fashion -
aware that other traffic is present but expecting to force it into
yielding right of way, and a very small number (stereotypical
"pedestrian on bike"😉 will sail through oblivious.

Quoted message said:

That sounds substantially in agreement with what I wrote.

Ah, you had confused me with your use of "the majority of cyclists" to
mean "a very small number". Silly me.

-dan

Quoted message said:

On 10 Nov,

JNugent said:

Going through on red and amber is legal (certain
conditions applying) and because none of us are blessed with sight of
the future, there will always be a few who, wanting to use the utmost
capacity of the sequence, either misjudge the remaining length of red
and amber - or don't care enough to try to judge it.

Quoted message said:

Going through red is *always* illegal. If an amber is showing as well it was
previously on red. If an amber is showing on its own then it follows a green,
you are allowed to proceed but not if it has changed to red. The amber gives
warning that red is imminent and you should stop if it is safe.

Absolutely. It was amber I should have been thinking of.

Quoted message said:

At *no* time is it legal to pass red, and adequate warning is given of it
changing to red.

Quite right.

I meant "shaving the amber".

Got it mixed up there (don't worry - it doesn't happen out on the road
- only when thinking about the topic in the abstract).

Quoted message said:

On 10 Nov,

JNugent said:

Going through on red and amber is legal (certain
conditions applying) and because none of us are blessed with sight of
the future, there will always be a few who, wanting to use the utmost
capacity of the sequence, either misjudge the remaining length of red
and amber - or don't care enough to try to judge it.

Quoted message said:

Going through red is *always* illegal. If an amber is showing as well it was
previously on red. If an amber is showing on its own then it follows a green,
you are allowed to proceed but not if it has changed to red. The amber gives
warning that red is imminent and you should stop if it is safe.

Absolutely. It was amber I should have been thinking of.

Quoted message said:

At *no* time is it legal to pass red, and adequate warning is given of it
changing to red.

Quite right.

I meant "shaving the amber".

Got it mixed up there (don't worry - it doesn't happen out on the road
- only when thinking about the topic in the abstract).

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If (the Americanism?) "run" means "pass at red just as though they
> were green", that's nonsense and you know it. I wouldn't even say
> that the majority of cyclists do that - just the majority of
> cyclists in Inner London and a rising proportion in some other places.

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My best guess is that about half of the cyclists I see will go
through red lights if there is nothing coming the other way [...] a
small number (stereotypical courier) will go through in
"confrontational" fashion - aware that other traffic is present but
expecting to force it into yielding right of way, and a very small
number (stereotypical "pedestrian on bike"😉 will sail through oblivious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That sounds substantially in agreement with what I wrote.

Quoted message said:

Ah, you had confused me with your use of "the majority of cyclists" to
mean "a very small number". Silly me.

Eh?

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal
effect of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely
irrelevant, as I think you will agree. And this means that you are
agreeing with me that the majority will cross a red light with no
apparent compunction.

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

Quoted message said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If (the Americanism?) "run" means "pass at red just as though they
> were green", that's nonsense and you know it. I wouldn't even say
> that the majority of cyclists do that - just the majority of
> cyclists in Inner London and a rising proportion in some other places.

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My best guess is that about half of the cyclists I see will go
through red lights if there is nothing coming the other way [...] a
small number (stereotypical courier) will go through in
"confrontational" fashion - aware that other traffic is present but
expecting to force it into yielding right of way, and a very small
number (stereotypical "pedestrian on bike"😉 will sail through oblivious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That sounds substantially in agreement with what I wrote.

Quoted message said:

Ah, you had confused me with your use of "the majority of cyclists" to
mean "a very small number". Silly me.

Eh?

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal
effect of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely
irrelevant, as I think you will agree. And this means that you are
agreeing with me that the majority will cross a red light with no
apparent compunction.

JNugent said:

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal effect
of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely irrelevant,
as I think you will agree. And this means that you are agreeing with me
that the majority will cross a red light with no apparent compunction.

Please stop twisting my words. I said nothing of the kind.

(Clues: (1) "roughly half" does not in itself imply a majority; (2)
adding together my three categories is not legitimate - those in the
second and third categories will by definition /also/ be in the first;
(3) going through on a red when there is nothing coming is not the same
as going through "as if it were green", which was your position - unless
you habitually cross junctions on green at near walking pace and in the
expectation that traffic coming the other way will be surprised to see
you there and will not stop for you. )

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

-dan

JNugent said:

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal effect
of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely irrelevant,
as I think you will agree. And this means that you are agreeing with me
that the majority will cross a red light with no apparent compunction.

Please stop twisting my words. I said nothing of the kind.

(Clues: (1) "roughly half" does not in itself imply a majority; (2)
adding together my three categories is not legitimate - those in the
second and third categories will by definition /also/ be in the first;
(3) going through on a red when there is nothing coming is not the same
as going through "as if it were green", which was your position - unless
you habitually cross junctions on green at near walking pace and in the
expectation that traffic coming the other way will be surprised to see
you there and will not stop for you. )

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

-dan

Quoted message said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal
effect of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely
irrelevant, as I think you will agree. And this means that you are
agreeing with me that the majority will cross a red light with no
apparent compunction.

Quoted message said:

Please stop twisting my words. I said nothing of the kind.

Quoted message said:

(Clues: (1) "roughly half" does not in itself imply a majority; (2)
adding together my three categories is not legitimate - those in the
second and third categories will by definition /also/ be in the first;
(3) going through on a red when there is nothing coming is not the same
as going through "as if it were green", which was your position

The two things are exactly the same. It would not be "better" if
car-drivers were doing it. Red means "stop and wait", not "only go if
you think it's OK to do so".

Quoted message said:

- unless
you habitually cross junctions on green at near walking pace and in the
expectation that traffic coming the other way will be surprised to see
you there and will not stop for you. )

Quoted message said:

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

Well, OK, if you didn't mean your categories to be summed, fair
enough. That was not clear in your original mention of the percentages.

So I say "the majority", whereas you say "not quite a majority, but half".

Either proportion is quite disgraceful, and TBH, I don't see the need
for us to argue over it.

In any case, as you said, we are each speaking of our impressions
rather than the result of a scientific survey. We might both be right.
Or both be wrong.

Quoted message said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agreed with you (or you agreed with me - whatever). More than a half
of cyclists will go through on red (in Inner London - it's fewer
elsewhere). By that I mean just a straight red - not the marginal
effect of the change from amber (got it right that time!).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Their assessment of whether or not it's "safe" is absolutely
irrelevant, as I think you will agree. And this means that you are
agreeing with me that the majority will cross a red light with no
apparent compunction.

Quoted message said:

Please stop twisting my words. I said nothing of the kind.

Quoted message said:

(Clues: (1) "roughly half" does not in itself imply a majority; (2)
adding together my three categories is not legitimate - those in the
second and third categories will by definition /also/ be in the first;
(3) going through on a red when there is nothing coming is not the same
as going through "as if it were green", which was your position

The two things are exactly the same. It would not be "better" if
car-drivers were doing it. Red means "stop and wait", not "only go if
you think it's OK to do so".

Quoted message said:

- unless
you habitually cross junctions on green at near walking pace and in the
expectation that traffic coming the other way will be surprised to see
you there and will not stop for you. )

Quoted message said:

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

Well, OK, if you didn't mean your categories to be summed, fair
enough. That was not clear in your original mention of the percentages.

So I say "the majority", whereas you say "not quite a majority, but half".

Either proportion is quite disgraceful, and TBH, I don't see the need
for us to argue over it.

In any case, as you said, we are each speaking of our impressions
rather than the result of a scientific survey. We might both be right.
Or both be wrong.

spindrift said:

"People generally break speed limits
because they don't think it will do any harm and most of the time it
doesn't. "

Garbage. Boring Pro-Speeding Lie #132 "Speeding is safe cos I've never
killed anyone".

Repeated here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7086290.stm

Quote:
Paul Smith, founder of campaign group Safe Speed, said: "Drivers will
rightly be concerned that they will be faced with losing their
licences for six months after two perfectly routine cases of driving
safely.

"We all know that exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically
dangerous."

Classic schoolboy howler from Small Pith. He does this every time, he
really should stop and think sometimes.

Accidents are not the baseline Smith says they are. He bases his
whiole case by twisting official data and putting it into graphs that
he claims proves he's right.

It never even occurs to him that there are any other considerations
and he has frankly admitted that his is a car- based campaign which is
why it's baffling he claims to speak for road safety. The man's
absurdly blinkered.

Speeding cars scare people off the road, divide communities, make a
Godawful noise and [censored] people off whether or not the speeding driver
scrapes a child along the asphalt.

This is hilarious, Smith had the chance to speak out against boy
racers like this man who followed Smith's advice to pick a safe speed
and left a man in a wheelchair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7085735.stm

In refusing to condemn speeders like Jackson, Smith encourages the
crippling injuries and deaths speeding causes. He had a chance.

He blew it.

Smith has the blood of innocent road users on his hands, the new fines
are a fantastic opportunity for road safety.

45mph in a 30 zone deserves six points, if anyone is stupid enough to
do that speed twice they bloody well need to be banned from the roads.

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

in message <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] ('

) said:

JNugent wrote:

[usual idiocy]

Quoted message said:

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

He's a troll, and you're feeding him. He'll keep on (and on, and on) until
you stop responding. He has no rational argument to offer, so it's no use
reasoning with him as though he had.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] ('

) said:

JNugent wrote:

[usual idiocy]

Quoted message said:

Suddenly you seam determined to demonstrate Simon's point for him. What
gives?

He's a troll, and you're feeding him. He'll keep on (and on, and on) until
you stop responding. He has no rational argument to offer, so it's no use
reasoning with him as though he had.

Interestingly he started regularly posting here[1] shortly after TrollB
stopped about a month ago, and about two months after the other troll
stopped posting. I think he has eaten our resident trolls, and by the
looks of things it is time for his feed very soon.

[1] i.e. not crossposting from uk.transport

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Interestingly he started regularly posting here[1] shortly after TrollB
stopped about a month ago, and about two months after the other troll
stopped posting. I think he has eaten our resident trolls, and by the
looks of things it is time for his feed very soon.

He's a much bigger and older troll that MattB and gained the epithet
Nugentoid of Cager IV in the past.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Sir Jeremy said:

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

Curious, Paul has always appeared to be a total idiot to me. Do you have
any references to any academics or road safety professionals respecting
him?