And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Tom Anderson

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Daniel Barlow wrote:

> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>
>> and there's a stretch of pavement on my commute that i routinely cycle
>> along [2]
>
>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&h...004957&t=k&z=18
>
> I know that junction, and you're right that it's a wide and not very
> populous pavement. Prime contender for a couple of toucans and a bit of
> shared-use path, I'd have thought, though I believe the whole gyratory
> is one that the LCC are agitating to have returned to two-way use.

Ah, interesting. I'm not sure if that would make things okay or not,
really. Depends on how they arranged the lanes and lights.

Today, i tried to find a route around this junction which would let me
avoid both the pavement cycling and the gyratory, but didn't do
brilliantly. I turned up Old Gloucester Street (after a little bit of
pavement - i should have got there via an earlier turn-off up Boswell
Street), but then to get on to Southampton Row, you either have to go
along Cosmo Place, which is a narrow cobbled street lined with cafes with
outdoors tables, so no, or on foot through a passage to Guilford Street
and then through the one-way banned-turn maze around Russell Square. I
only beat that bit by wrong-waying a street and then dismounting.

I was heading for UCL, so i can probably work out a route avoiding the
above, but it's going to be lots of fiddly little turns in back streets.

> The traffic lights at the bottom of Proctor St have possibly the
> shortest green phase I've ever seen.

Yes. And there's a junction further east on that route that has a
charmingly long all-red phase.

tom

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

NewRiderPS

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:19 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:

>In news:cu7264577k65dren9qk6j61b6ubg03164j@4ax.com,
>NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
>> speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>
>Everyone? Speak for yourself, laddie, but that doesn't describe me when
>behind the wheel, and nor, I suspect, does it describe the vast majority of
>the members of this froup who are also motorists.

If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
Model-T.

NewRiderPS

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:56:52 +0100,
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Sorry, that's not true. Many drivers don't speed, don't run lights and
>don't park illegally.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, I've never in my life parked illegally.
>I've posted previously about my attitude to speeding. I've never run a
>red light: indeed, I'm more likely to be found stopped at an amber
>light.

You've never gotten a driving ticket, parking ticket, never exceeded
the speed limit?

I find that quite unbelievable, but good for you, if so. We need more
drivers like you.

>You could easily make the case that some cyclists are criminals. There's
>no 'might' about it. Similarly, you could easily make the case that some
>motorists are criminals. Any argument that stems from unsubstantiable
>broad-brush generalisation is, sadly, one that reflects badly on the
>person who seeks to make it.

I've only had two tickets in 30+ years of driving, but I still sense
the aggro when I get behind the wheel. I manage to subdue it, though.
I do not feel anything like that when cycling, except for the drive to
ride faster up hills.

Remember, bicycles generally weigh only 30lbs or less and are
significantly less likely to cause property damage or bodily injury
(though cyclists have injured each other and pedestrians; usually it's
rare) than motor vehicles. If you adjust and scale the danger, it's
enormously more dangerous to everyone when a driver speeds or light
jumps.

NewRiderPS

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:41:25 -0400, NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:19 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
><smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>In news:cu7264577k65dren9qk6j61b6ubg03164j@4ax.com,
>>NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>
>>> Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
>>> speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>>
>>Everyone? Speak for yourself, laddie, but that doesn't describe me when
>>behind the wheel, and nor, I suspect, does it describe the vast majority of
>>the members of this froup who are also motorists.
>
>If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
>never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
>Model-T.

BTW, just kidding. I think you are right to make the case that the
majority of cyclists are a bit better drivers than most.

Sir Jeremy

On 25 Jun, 16:10, NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:41:25 -0400, NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:19 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> ><smert.spamio...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>Innews:cu7264577k65dren9qk6j61b6ubg03164j@4ax.com,
> >>NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
> >>> Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> >>> speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>
> >>Everyone? *Speak for yourself, laddie, but that doesn't describe me when
> >>behind the wheel, and nor, I suspect, does it describe the vast majority of
> >>the members of this froup who are also motorists.
>
> >If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
> >never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
> >Model-T.
>
> BTW, just kidding. I think you are right to make the case that the
> majority of cyclists are a bit better drivers than most.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Zero evidence for that assertion

Sir Jeremy

On 25 Jun, 15:38, NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:34:29 +0100, "burtthebike"
>
>
>
>
>
> <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:LcCdnUyysqKm1_zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> >> "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:TKb8k.96771$NN3.70666@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> >>> "David Damerell" <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:wHD*dSegs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >>>> Quoting *NewRiderPS *<ride...@verizon.net>:
> >>>>>Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> >>>>>speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
>
> >>>> If you really want an "everyone" case, ride up a road with double white
> >>>> lines and count how many people don't overtake illegally.
>
> >>> Since it is not illegal to overtake a cyclist by crossing the white
> >>> lines, it's unlikely to be any.
>
> >> Unfortunately it is. In a lot of ways I'd rather it wasn't, with the
> >> caveat that they still need to actually look and not overtake where they
> >> can't see, but the rule about overtaking cyclists only applies when
> >> they're going up to 10mph.
>
> >since the poster about double white lines didn't make any claims as to
> >speed, it is extremely unlikely that any driver would be prosecuted for
> >overtaking a cyclist in these circumstances "but officer, he was doing 9mph"
> >and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is extremely unlikely
> >that a prosecution would succeed.
>
> We got pulled over in our car one night for crossing double yellow to
> pass. Not another car in sight, we were following an unmarked car
> going down mainstreet doing 15 in a 25mph zone. Fortunately the wife
> was driving and we just got a warning. Still, quite unbelievable for
> him to be going that slow and still pull us.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Double yellows in the middle of the road? You're not from around these
parts

Roger Thorpe

Sir Jeremy wrote:

> Double yellows in the middle of the road? You're not from around these
> parts

Nope, I reckon he comes from a place where the sage is purple.

Ekul Namsob

NewRiderPS <rider01@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:56:52 +0100,
> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> > NewRiderPS wrote:
> > > Contrast this to car drivers who purposely break the law. Everyone
> > > speeds, runs lights and parks illegally, hoping not to get caught.
> > > Drivers use their cars as weapons, threaten and harass other drivers,
> > > intentionally run other road users off the road.

> >Sorry, that's not true. Many drivers don't speed, don't run lights and
> >don't park illegally.
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge, I've never in my life parked illegally.
> >I've posted previously about my attitude to speeding. I've never run a
> >red light: indeed, I'm more likely to be found stopped at an amber
> >light.
>
> You've never gotten a driving ticket, parking ticket, never exceeded
> the speed limit?

I've been caught speeding twice. I have made great efforts not to break
the speed limit since the first time I was caught speeding. The second
time was anything but deliberate.

I have never had any other legal sanction, largely because I believe in
the rule of law, even though sometimes it is an ass.

> I find that quite unbelievable, but good for you, if so. We need more
> drivers like you.

Thanks.

<snip>

> Remember, bicycles generally weigh only 30lbs or less and are
> significantly less likely to cause property damage or bodily injury
> (though cyclists have injured each other and pedestrians; usually it's
> rare) than motor vehicles. If you adjust and scale the danger, it's
> enormously more dangerous to everyone when a driver speeds or light
> jumps.

That is indeed true. It's not, however, the argument you were making,
that drivers (all of them, apparently) deliberately break the law.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob

Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Mark <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in
> news:m37464hgfitcnbhus0unsv0b014p7674v4@4ax.com:
>
> > One problem is that very few road users have any idea what primary and
> > "secondary" position is. They appear to genuinely believe that
> > cyclists should always be in the gutter.
>
> They don't need to know the terms "primary" and "secondary" positions. All
> they need to know is that cyclists are as entitled as any other vehicle
> operator to position their vehicle wherever they choose in the lane they
> occupy so as to remain safe, achieve optimum visibility, etc. They also
> need to understand that cyclists who choose to move towards the left to
> expedite the passage of other road users do so out of courtesy and not
> because because of any obligation.
>
> > At lot of cyclists I see appear to have the same opinion, it seems.

>
> That is something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps we need some public
> information adverts telling cyclists how to ride defensively. Perhaps then
> motorists might get a clue and we might get a little more respect!

Absolutely. Would it make sense for us to badger the CTC, cycling
magazines and MPs for this?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob

Sir Jeremy <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote:

> On 25 Jun, 16:10, NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:41:25 -0400, NewRiderPS <ride...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:


> > >If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
> > >never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
> > >Model-T.
> >
> > BTW, just kidding. I think you are right to make the case that the
> > majority of cyclists are a bit better drivers than most.- Hide quoted text -

> Zero evidence for that assertion

It's probably fair to say that the majority of cyclists are better at
looking out for vulnerable road users. However, I have no useful
evidence for that.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ian Smith

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you're wrong. In fact, i think you have exactly the same
> >> blind spot as the cagers: "we're white as the driven snow, and it's
> >> the other guys who are making the trouble!". I think RLJing is as
> >> common amongst cyclists as speeding is among motorists.
> >
> > You are wrong.
>
> I'm pleased to hear it!
>
> > At least, the available statistics suggest you are wrong. The RAC did a
> > study intended to show how evil cyclist are and how they all jump red
> > lights, but they only got a majority going through the red at one
> > location of the many where they did the count.
>
> Interesting, that comes as quite a surprise.
>
> As others have mentioned, there may be a contextual variation, urban vs
> suburban vs rural locations, etc. I'd be interested to see some data on
> that too.

The RAC count was all urban locations. One London location was the
only where more than 50% of cyclists jumped teh lights. I seem to
recall a central Glasgow location was next worst, but might be wrong.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

congokid

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806241805310.32679@urchin.earth.li>, Tom
Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes

>You are J. G. Ballard AICMFP.

In his Cocaine Nights Ballard mentions someone using a computer and the
light from the screen rippling over their face. My laptop screen isn't
that bright, and if it was I doubt I'd be anything other than blinded -
it would be like looking into a projector beam. I suspect he had his
mind firmly on the screenplay when he was writing.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

Paul Boyd

On 25/06/2008 13:04, Daniel Barlow said,

> They do. "Other motorists" come in for regular criticism from
> motorists everywhere - think about the stereotypes of women drivers,
> middle lane hogs, Sunday drivers, crap parkers, taxi drivers, minicab
> drivers ... or the perceived tension between four wheels and two:
> "cagers" vs "power rangers".

True, but what you don't get is the extreme vitriol in the press about
women drivers etc. I mean, just look at the page title on the
thisisbristol link in the OP. That site calls us evil-doing two-wheeled
terrorists. Ok, it's actually some prat called James Caddick, but the
"thisis..." sites are supposed to be for people to find out about the
place. What does that article say about the sensibility of giving that
city money for cycling when the local site prints such crap. I wonder
what the reaction would be if the word "women" or "Moslem" or
"Christian" was substituted for "cyclist" with regard to money being
spent on those groups. Why is it deemed acceptable to print a story
where cyclists are libelled in such a way? I can be 100% sure that if
virtually any other group was referred to as "terrorists" and
"criminals" there would be uproar - and I don't just mean in newsgroups.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd

On 24/06/2008 21:04, Nigel Randell said,

> Again,
> although I see quite a few cars crossing on red it's usually the first
> second or so of the red phase which may be down to the desire to pinch a bit
> of space, or <benefit-of-the-doubt mode> just forgetting to check the mirror
> before the lights and not knowing what's behind </benefit-of-the-doubt
> mode>.

Sorry, but in this area (which generally includes Bristol, sort of) it
isn't just the first second or so when cars jump red lights. I know
your <benefit-of-the-doubt mode> is TIC, but there is often absolutely
no benefit of doubt whatsoever - it is a blatant ignoring of a red
light. Don't forget that the light goes to amber first so there is even
an advance warning that it's about to go red. There is no excuse
whatsoever for jumping a red light, by anyone.

A notorious set near me has an overlap between one set of lights turning
red to the "opposing" set changing green (never mind the amber of either
lights) of at least 3 seconds. It doesn't sound much, but sit there and
count it, and remember that before a light goes red it goes amber. Yet
there are still cars coming through when the other set is green - that
means after at least 3 seconds on red. That is just one set - that sort
of jumping is typical. Many drivers just seem to treat the red light as
an indication that they need to accelerate to jump in front of cars
coming the other way as if they're playing dodgems. Like several others
on this group, I've been abused (when driving) for having the temerity
to slow down when the lights go to amber so that I can stop on red.

In case you haven't guessed, this issue of cars RLJing really, really
p***es me off when the same group of people lay into cyclists doing the
same thing with such vitriol. If motorists as a group all had shiny
halos then their criticism of illegal acts by other is justified, but
before they can criticise other groups they need to look more closely in
the mirror. I've yet to see an article published in the national media
written about motorists in the same way as is often written about
cyclists although both groups have people that break the law.

Ultimately, a cyclist jumping a red light is going to kill himself
eventually. A motorist jumping a red light is more likely to kill
others, so surely that is a far more serious offence that should be
pilloried in the press.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/