Twunt on a bike.

LSMike said:

Today by the Natural History Museum, pedestrian lights are green, I'm
crossing on foot slightly ahead of my family, my wife, my brother, and
my four year old son. I spot a person-on-bike, I hesitate to call him
a cyclist, who's looking like he's gonna just cycle on through, likely
either into or dangerously near my little boy.

Tell you what, I was instantly angry, I wheeled and tracked him with an
evil glare, and he stopped. Lucky for him too, I would have lamped the
swine if he'd gone anywhere near my little boy. What's more from the
way he rode I'm almost certain he would have gone through, plus he gave
me some kind of verbal after we had crossed.

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself. Doing it through pedestrians really wicks me off, seriously so
when it's my family the idiot is threatening with physical harm.

You get my vote - I'm against ALL selfish road users - motorised or
be-cycled.

Chris

LSMike said:

Today by the Natural History Museum, pedestrian lights are green, I'm
crossing on foot slightly ahead of my family, my wife, my brother, and
my four year old son. I spot a person-on-bike, I hesitate to call him
a cyclist, who's looking like he's gonna just cycle on through, likely
either into or dangerously near my little boy.

Tell you what, I was instantly angry, I wheeled and tracked him with an
evil glare, and he stopped. Lucky for him too, I would have lamped the
swine if he'd gone anywhere near my little boy. What's more from the
way he rode I'm almost certain he would have gone through, plus he gave
me some kind of verbal after we had crossed.

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself. Doing it through pedestrians really wicks me off, seriously so
when it's my family the idiot is threatening with physical harm.

I had one knock my then two year old over. Came through a red light on
a pedestrian crossing - and not just a POB, but a dressed up chap on a
'decent' bike - at least according to my wife. I wasn't there otherwise
I might also have been rather 'upset'.

...d

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

Quoted message said:

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself.

I disagree with it all.

Getting away with it is a different matter.

Admitting acceptance is as good as doing it yourself.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as elyob
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself.

I disagree with it all.

Getting away with it is a different matter.

That's the problem - how to stop idiots from doing it? I'd be in favour
of level crossing gates for traffic lights but somehow I don't see that
happening.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Pyromancer said:

That's the problem - how to stop idiots from doing it? I'd be in favour
of level crossing gates for traffic lights but somehow I don't see that
happening.

Stinger type spikes embedded into the tarmac? They automatically raise
into position on amber, and retract on green.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

| On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:45:56 +0000, Pyromancer
| <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| >That's the problem - how to stop idiots from doing it?

Bright yellow diamond-cut clad hides at traffic lights,
with snipers being moved around them at random.

Paintball snipers will do, but I don't see anything wrong
with armour-piercing rounds for the chelsea tractors.

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

Quoted message said:

| On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:45:56 +0000, Pyromancer
| <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| >That's the problem - how to stop idiots from doing it?

Bright yellow diamond-cut clad hides at traffic lights,
with snipers being moved around them at random.

Paintball snipers will do, but I don't see anything wrong
with armour-piercing rounds for the chelsea tractors.

I would agree to these suggested methods of control if they could be applied
to the pedestrians as well. The most dangerous part of riding on the road in
town is the traffic lighted pedestrian crossing. I have had peds step into
me or within feet or inches of me so many times as they blindly walk across
on their "red" and my green! I always sound my horn when approaching a
crossing, especially when I can see potential "walkers dithering on the
edge!
The crossings are very dangerous because of the freedom the pedestrian has
to walk when he likes. Give me a traditional zebra crossing every time,
where it is totally clear that the pedestrian has right of way. Still have
occasional problem but pedestrians use zebra crossings in a very different
way to these "panda" crossings.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

| On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:45:56 +0000, Pyromancer
| <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| >That's the problem - how to stop idiots from doing it?

Bright yellow diamond-cut clad hides at traffic lights,
with snipers being moved around them at random.

Paintball snipers will do, but I don't see anything wrong
with armour-piercing rounds for the chelsea tractors.

I would agree to these suggested methods of control if they could be
applied to the pedestrians as well. The most dangerous part of riding on
the road in town is the traffic lighted pedestrian crossing. I have had
peds step into me or within feet or inches of me so many times as they
blindly walk across on their "red" and my green! I always sound my horn
when approaching a crossing, especially when I can see potential "walkers
dithering on the edge!
The crossings are very dangerous because of the freedom the pedestrian has
to walk when he likes. Give me a traditional zebra crossing every time,
where it is totally clear that the pedestrian has right of way. Still have
occasional problem but pedestrians use zebra crossings in a very different
way to these "panda" crossings.

I thought pedestrians always had right of way and that this was especially
the case at any type of designated crossing. Sounding a horn should only be
done to prevent an accident it should not be used to enforce right of way
(especially a right that doesn't actually exist).

Personally I don't mind cyclists riding through pedestrians as long as they
are going slowly/safely.

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

Quoted message said:

I thought pedestrians always had right of way and that this was especially
the case at any type of designated crossing.

Erm...no! They *do* have right of way when crossing a side road over
traffic turning into said side road, and also on pavements (where
driveways cross, e.g.). Both of these are regularly ignored by other
road users, IME. They only have the right of way at pedestrian crossings
within the regulations pertaining to those crossings, which means they
*don't* when their light is on red. Obviously, I'd have thought!

Quoted message said:

Personally I don't mind cyclists riding through pedestrians as long as they
are going slowly/safely.

I think sticking to the rules is safer and leads to fewer accidents.
Especially where children are concerned.

--
Simon
http://www.simondaw.freeserve.co.uk

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

(Chris Smith) said:

LSMike said:

Today by the Natural History Museum, pedestrian lights are green, I'm
crossing on foot slightly ahead of my family, my wife, my brother, and
my four year old son. I spot a person-on-bike, I hesitate to call him
a cyclist, who's looking like he's gonna just cycle on through, likely
either into or dangerously near my little boy.

Tell you what, I was instantly angry, I wheeled and tracked him with
an evil glare, and he stopped. Lucky for him too, I would have lamped
the swine if he'd gone anywhere near my little boy. What's more from
the way he rode I'm almost certain he would have gone through, plus he
gave me some kind of verbal after we had crossed.

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself. Doing it through pedestrians really wicks me off, seriously
so when it's my family the idiot is threatening with physical harm.

You get my vote - I'm against ALL selfish road users - motorised or
be-cycled.

And mine. Adding pedestrians, who frequently step into the road without
looking, or suddenly step put from between lines of static traffic also
without looking.

If the government does want to encourage cycling it's time that it ran a
campaign to raise awareness amongst the general population. But I'm not
hopeful. Many of the cyclists I see gaily cycling through red lights in
London look like civil servants. And it's really galling that so many of
these tossers are wearing helmets and bright yellow reflective jackets.

Simon D said:

I think sticking to the rules is safer and leads to fewer accidents.
Especially where children are concerned.

Rules are for the obediance of fools and the guidance of wise men.

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

Quoted message said:

Simon D said:

I think sticking to the rules is safer and leads to fewer accidents.
Especially where children are concerned.

Rules are for the obediance of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Trouble is, that means the individual is assuming his own wisdom. That's
many drivers' justification for ignoring speed limits. You're placing
yourself in their category if you consider that you can pick the traffic
laws you'll comply with.

--
Simon
http://www.simondaw.freeserve.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

occasional problem but pedestrians use zebra crossings in a very different
way to these "panda" crossings.

"Panda" is no more - got replaced by "Pelicon" in 1969.

cheers,
clive

Simon D said:

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

Quoted message said:

I thought pedestrians always had right of way and that this was especially
the case at any type of designated crossing.

Erm...no! They *do* have right of way when crossing a side road over
traffic turning into said side road, and also on pavements (where
driveways cross, e.g.). Both of these are regularly ignored by other
road users, IME. They only have the right of way at pedestrian crossings
within the regulations pertaining to those crossings, which means they
*don't* when their light is on red. Obviously, I'd have thought!

are you suggesting that traffic in the general traffic lane has a right
of way over pedestrians ? Are you suggesting that theer is any reason
why pedestrians should not cross at a pelican crossing whatever the
light state[1]? If a pedestrian has started to cross any road should
traffic ever not yield to them? Can you clarify and provide a
reference for these assertions? The City of London is pretty much the
capital of both assertive and of reckless pedestrian crossers. It isn't
exactly hard to avoid conflicts on a bike whilst still making
reasonable progress

best wishes
james

[1] self preservation notwithstanding

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I thought pedestrians always had right of way and that this was
especially
the case at any type of designated crossing.

Erm...no! They *do* have right of way when crossing a side road over
traffic turning into said side road, and also on pavements (where
driveways cross, e.g.). Both of these are regularly ignored by other
road users, IME. They only have the right of way at pedestrian crossings
within the regulations pertaining to those crossings, which means they
*don't* when their light is on red. Obviously, I'd have thought!

Perhaps I used the wrong (or at least ambiguous) word. Pedestrians do have
the right to cross the road against the lights and motorists and cyclist are
obliged to take reasonable care not to drive into them.

What I do believe is against the law is for a car to sound its horn
aggressively as a threat to pedestrians crossing in its path. I'm not sure
if this is the same for bike horns.

It can of course rude and anti social for a pedestrian to delay traffic at
lights but not against the law.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I don't mind cyclists riding through pedestrians as long as
they
are going slowly/safely.

I think sticking to the rules is safer and leads to fewer accidents.
Especially where children are concerned.

This may be the case but I also believe that more accidents could be
prevented if people who believed that they had legal right of way were more
cautious and considerate.

On balance I would prefer that people used common sense and consideration
rather than slavish adherence to their interpretation of the rules.

Quoted message said:

--
Simon
http://www.simondaw.freeserve.co.uk

Al C-F said:

Simon D said:

I think sticking to the rules is safer and leads to fewer accidents.
Especially where children are concerned.

Rules are for the obediance of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Which means that only wise men should be allowed to bend them, the way I
read it.

--
Ambrose

LSMike said:

Today by the Natural History Museum, pedestrian lights are green, I'm
crossing on foot slightly ahead of my family, my wife, my brother, and
my four year old son. I spot a person-on-bike, I hesitate to call him
a cyclist, who's looking like he's gonna just cycle on through, likely
either into or dangerously near my little boy.

Tell you what, I was instantly angry, I wheeled and tracked him with an
evil glare, and he stopped. Lucky for him too, I would have lamped the
swine if he'd gone anywhere near my little boy. What's more from the
way he rode I'm almost certain he would have gone through, plus he gave
me some kind of verbal after we had crossed.

I don't really mind cyclists going through a deserted pedestrian
crossing on a red, although I don't agree with it and don't do it
myself. Doing it through pedestrians really wicks me off, seriously so
when it's my family the idiot is threatening with physical harm.

I would have just punched him. Who's to say his black eye wasn't
sustained in a collision with me (using the usual tabloid definition or
a bike-car collision, it was...)? I don't think he'd have found many
sympathetic witnesses.

I also hate the gits who ride round Swindon's crowded town centre (no
bikes allowed) on their MTBs and BMXs, swerving between the pedestrians.
Mind you, most of them seem to be from the lowest levels of chavdom
or asylum seekers (we have a lot here) so they probably can't read the
"no cycling" signs.

John said:

It can of course rude and anti social for a pedestrian to delay traffic at
lights but not against the law.

But it is against the law for peds to take an unreasonable time to
cross. As per Pelican Ped Crossing Regs, Reg 18(2)

"(2) No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the
limits of a "Pelican" crossing longer than is necessary for the purpose
of passing over the crossing with reasonable despatch."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19870016_en_1.htm

And Reg 9 states " (a) the red light shall convey to a pedestrian the
warning that he should not in the interests of safety use the
crossing;"

Of course regardless of any regulations cyclists and motorists would be
correctly held to be liable for any avoidable collision regardless of
whether the lights were red,green or flashing amber. Would a pedestrian
injured when crossing on a "red man" might be held to be partly liable?
Iain

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Of course regardless of any regulations cyclists and motorists would be
correctly held to be liable for any avoidable collision regardless of
whether the lights were red,green or flashing amber. Would a pedestrian
injured when crossing on a "red man" might be held to be partly liable?
Iain

I hope not.

I *can't* move very fast now and inadequate time is allowed at some crossings.

I *won't* start crossing until the amber gamblers and those who 'follow
through' later[1] have gone.

[1] ie when the lights for traffic are red, but we can't say that
'law-abiding' motorists ever do that, can we?

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.