And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Alex Potter

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:11:06 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:

> On 28/06/2008 13:50, Alex Potter wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:07:50 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
>>> Can you explain why you think that? I'll explain why I think
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> I'll try.
>
> Thanks. I expect I'll snip heavily now.

I'll probably do the same

>> Where we feel that
>> there are valid reasons for change then we have appropriate, if slow,
>> lines of communication with the legislature.
>
> Agreed. I don't feel strongly enough about this to bother trying to get
> the law changed, but if CTC started a campaign to change the law then it
> would have my approval.

Neither do I, but I don't think it would have mine. I think the
perception by other road users that cyclists are law-breaking lunatics,
as encouraged by the press, would not be lessened by such a change in the
law, and that it would not, therefore, serve "the greater good".

I do understand that in terms of risk, that of cycling is relatively low.
I happily ride in Birmingham traffic. I do get upset when cyclists sail
smugly through red lights while the drivers in their cars are waiting,
more or less patiently, for their turn. It smacks of bad manners, to me,
and I feel that such behaviour is just plain, old-fashioned "not on".

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

mcp@nildram.co.uk

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:17:33 GMT, Alex Potter
<spambin@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps there should be a series of public information films of the
>"cyclist gets squashed" kind

As long as they make clear that motorists are responsible for the vast
majority of accidents between cycles and cars and do not engage in
"victim blaming".

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 14:08, JNugent wrote:
> Have you never seen a set of traffic lights in a location where there is
> never (or, at worst, rarely) any "congestion"?

I don't believe I've ever encountered a set of traffic lights (other
than for pedestrian crossings, roadworks or control of site access) at a
location where the lights do not serve the purpose of easing or
preventing congestion by allowing motorists from a minor road to cross
or turn into a major road. Do you know of such a set?

> Were you unaware that traffic lights date from a time when the
> "motorist" hardly existed?

No, I was not. Were you unaware that there was a problem with
congestion caused by horses and carts at the time that the first traffic
lights appeared in London? Do you not think that those lights might
have been intended to deal with that congestion? Do you not consider
that the large increase in traffic lights in the subsequent 140 years
might be related to the increase in motor traffic congestion?

Regardless of any of the above, do you think that lights *must*
necessarily serve the same purpose in 2008 as in 1868?

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 14:28, NewRiderPS wrote:
>> I won't condone red light jumping by cyclists as long as it's illegal,
>> but I don't believe that it /should/ be illegal. I believe that a red
>> light should be equivalent to a "Give Way" sign for cyclists (and that
>> includes giving way to pedestrians).
>
> I would respectfully disagree. I think that stop _signs_ should be the
> equivalent for 'give way', but not stop _lights_.

Erm, no. That's what "Give Way" signs are for. "Stop" signs are for
stopping at. Neither will solve the problem of crossing or turning onto
a major road from a minor road when there is heavy traffic on the major
road. Traffic lights, whether they mean "Give Way" or "Stop", solve
that problem.

> Though 'give way' at stop lights seems to be how many cyclists
> perceive it, proceeding when they think it's safe, typically done
> because they think it's unsafe to wait in line, it seems too dangerous
> to make it a rule.

What evidence to you have that it seems dangerous?

> If they reallly are concerned, then it's still possible to dismount
> and walk the bike through the adjaceent crosswalk as a pedestrian.

No, that's illegal, although I understand from your previous posts that
you are unfamiliar with the rules of the road in the UK. According to
the letter of the law, you /could/ pick the bike up and carry it through.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

JNugent

Danny Colyer wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Have you never seen a set of traffic lights in a location where there
>> is never (or, at worst, rarely) any "congestion"?

> I don't believe I've ever encountered a set of traffic lights (other
> than for pedestrian crossings, roadworks or control of site access) at a
> location where the lights do not serve the purpose of easing or
> preventing congestion by allowing motorists from a minor road to cross
> or turn into a major road.

I accept that you have never encountered such a set of traffic lights. I
suppose there have to be some people who have never travelled widely by
road and I can think of no reason not to accept your cliam that you are
one of them.

> Do you know of such a set?

Yes.

>> Were you unaware that traffic lights date from a time when the
>> "motorist" hardly existed?

> No, I was not.

So why phrase your claim so oddly?

> Were you unaware that there was a problem with
> congestion caused by horses and carts at the time that the first traffic
> lights appeared in London? Do you not think that those lights might
> have been intended to deal with that congestion?

No. They were meant to prevent traffic conflicts in a way which didn't
require a policmen to stand on point duty. I can remember several places
where policemen carried out that duty.

> Do you not consider
> that the large increase in traffic lights in the subsequent 140 years
> might be related to the increase in motor traffic congestion?
> Regardless of any of the above, do you think that lights *must*
> necessarily serve the same purpose in 2008 as in 1868?

What I believe isn't really relevant to the fact that you had thought
two incorrect (and therefore impossible) things before breakfast - and
had based an erroneous "argument" on them.

NewRiderPS

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:37:07 +0100, Danny Colyer
<danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 28/06/2008 14:28, NewRiderPS wrote:
>>> I won't condone red light jumping by cyclists as long as it's illegal,
>>> but I don't believe that it /should/ be illegal. I believe that a red
>>> light should be equivalent to a "Give Way" sign for cyclists (and that
>>> includes giving way to pedestrians).
>>
>> I would respectfully disagree. I think that stop _signs_ should be the
>> equivalent for 'give way', but not stop _lights_.
>
>Erm, no. That's what "Give Way" signs are for. "Stop" signs are for
>stopping at. Neither will solve the problem of crossing or turning onto
>a major road from a minor road when there is heavy traffic on the major
>road. Traffic lights, whether they mean "Give Way" or "Stop", solve
>that problem.

Can you read? I said I THINK, as in it is my opinion that...stop signs
SHOULD be deemed as give way for bicyclists. Where I live there are
numerous cities where this is so. It probably would be a reasonable
practice in the area where you are, at least in residential areas. Do
you ride a bike? If so would you stop at a stop sign leading to a dead
end street with no cars in sight? If so, then why criminalize such
activities?.

>> Though 'give way' at stop lights seems to be how many cyclists
>> perceive it, proceeding when they think it's safe, typically done
>> because they think it's unsafe to wait in line, it seems too dangerous
>> to make it a rule.
>
>What evidence to you have that it seems dangerous?

Again, only y opinion that it is too dangerous to deem stop LIGHTS as
give way for cyclists.

>> If they reallly are concerned, then it's still possible to dismount
>> and walk the bike through the adjaceent crosswalk as a pedestrian.
>
>No, that's illegal, although I understand from your previous posts that
>you are unfamiliar with the rules of the road in the UK. According to
>the letter of the law, you /could/ pick the bike up and carry it through.

I had no idea that dismounting and rolling a bicycle across a
cross-walk is illegal. Can you give a cite? Does this mean that any
wheeled device must be carried across the street, including shopping
carts, children's wagons, and scooters? I'd like to see even one
instance where someone was ticketed for rolling a bicycle across the
street dismounted, crosswalk or no.

Colin Nelson

"Danny Colyer" <danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:t_6dnQqnDeBPGfvVnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> On 28/06/2008 14:28, NewRiderPS wrote:
> >> I won't condone red light jumping by cyclists as long as it's illegal,
> >> but I don't believe that it /should/ be illegal. I believe that a red
> >> light should be equivalent to a "Give Way" sign for cyclists (and that
> >> includes giving way to pedestrians).
> >
> > I would respectfully disagree. I think that stop _signs_ should be the
> > equivalent for 'give way', but not stop _lights_.
>
> Erm, no. That's what "Give Way" signs are for. "Stop" signs are for
> stopping at. Neither will solve the problem of crossing or turning onto
> a major road from a minor road when there is heavy traffic on the major
> road. Traffic lights, whether they mean "Give Way" or "Stop", solve
> that problem.
>
> > Though 'give way' at stop lights seems to be how many cyclists
> > perceive it, proceeding when they think it's safe, typically done
> > because they think it's unsafe to wait in line, it seems too dangerous
> > to make it a rule.
>
> What evidence to you have that it seems dangerous?
>
> > If they reallly are concerned, then it's still possible to dismount
> > and walk the bike through the adjaceent crosswalk as a pedestrian.
>
> No, that's illegal, although I understand from your previous posts that
> you are unfamiliar with the rules of the road in the UK. According to
> the letter of the law, you /could/ pick the bike up and carry it through.
>
> --
> Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
> Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
> "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

I think you might be wrong there Danny ...
"Don't fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
Copied from here:-
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/c...and_the_law.php


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

Phil Armstrong

Danny Colyer <danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/06/2008 14:08, JNugent wrote:
>> Have you never seen a set of traffic lights in a location where there is
>> never (or, at worst, rarely) any "congestion"?
>
> I don't believe I've ever encountered a set of traffic lights (other
> than for pedestrian crossings, roadworks or control of site access) at a
> location where the lights do not serve the purpose of easing or
> preventing congestion by allowing motorists from a minor road to cross
> or turn into a major road. Do you know of such a set?

It's well established that the traffic flows are much improved when
the traffic light complex outside the Oxford Railway Station fails.

It's this triangle of multi-way lights here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...002181&t=k&z=19

Source: Oxcycle, not exactly a pro-motorist organisation!

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

Neil Williams

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:47:17 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>There are other considerations, such as the possibility/probability of
>unsecured loads.

There is that. But there doesn't seem a massively larger chance of it
in a Berlingo van (which isn't a car-derived van legally and thus gets
the lower limits) than in, say, an Astra van, which overall is about
the same size, just lower and longer, but does class as a car-derived
van and thus gets the car limits.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 20:16, NewRiderPS wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:37:07 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
>>> If they reallly are concerned, then it's still possible to dismount
>>> and walk the bike through the adjaceent crosswalk as a pedestrian.
>> No, that's illegal, although I understand from your previous posts that
>> you are unfamiliar with the rules of the road in the UK. According to
>> the letter of the law, you /could/ pick the bike up and carry it through.
>
> I had no idea that dismounting and rolling a bicycle across a
> cross-walk is illegal.

Wheeling a bicycle across a cross-walk (which I'll assume to be a
Leftpondian term for a pedestrian crossing) is not illegal, thanks to
the case of Crank v Brooks already mentioned. Wheeling a bike through a
red light, which would be required in order to reach the pedestrian
crossing in the scenario described, is.

> Can you give a cite?

Road Traffic Act 1988 section 36(1):
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts198...3#pt1-pb9-l1g36

"Where a traffic sign ... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a
person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the
indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence."

Unless you want to argue that someone pushing a bicycle is not
"propelling a vehicle".

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Danny Colyer

On 28/06/2008 21:11, Phil Armstrong wrote:
> Danny Colyer <danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe I've ever encountered a set of traffic lights (other
>> than for pedestrian crossings, roadworks or control of site access) at a
>> location where the lights do not serve the purpose of easing or
>> preventing congestion by allowing motorists from a minor road to cross
>> or turn into a major road. Do you know of such a set?
>
> It's well established that the traffic flows are much improved when
> the traffic light complex outside the Oxford Railway Station fails.
>
> It's this triangle of multi-way lights here:
>
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...002181&t=k&z=19

Thanks for the example, but I would argue that those lights count as
pedestrian crossings (mentioned in my "other than" above).

Similarly, there is a 3-way set of lights on my morning commute where
traffic flows are much improved when the lights fail. The lights also
control pedestrian crossings, though, and are necessary to allow
children to walk to school.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:07:50 +0100, Danny Colyer
<danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There's no reason why there shouldn't be different rules for different
>classes of vehicle. Indeed there already are, in areas as diverse as
>speed limits, training/testing requirements and types of road/RoW where
>they can be used.

I don't entirely disagree with you, Danny.

I think that allowing cyclists to proceed at lights when they feel it
is safe to do so should be the exception, not the rule. Pedestrian
lights and certain other lights, especially left turns and ahead
opposite a T junction could easily be fitted with an orange flashing
cycle only light meaning "Cyclists only may proceed with caution".

At major junctions cyclists should be made to obey lights.

mcp@nildram.co.uk

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:11:46 +0100, Phil Armstrong
<phil-news@kantaka.co.uk> wrote:

>It's well established that the traffic flows are much improved when
>the traffic light complex outside the Oxford Railway Station fails.

It's also one of the least pedestrian friendly crossings, up to 9
separate crossings to wait at to get across!

Ekul Namsob

Ace <b.rogers@ifrance.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:43:51 +0100,
> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> >Ace <b.rogers@ifrance.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:55:32 +0100,
> >> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> >> >Why? It's quite easy to park legally
> >>
> >> Rather depends where you are, doesn't it?
> >
> >No. It doesn't depend on location at all. If I cannot park legally in a
> >particular location then I park legally in a different location and use
> >those strange things called feet that I appear to possess.
>
> Good for you. I hope you get a nice warm feeling about it.

You're weird. Do you think I get a nice warm feeling about not
shoplifting, not farting in people's faces and not urinating in public
places?
>
> >> but even so there can be times when you
> >> know it's only red to allow pedestrians on the right-turn, and you're
> >> going straight on, and much more importantly, you're not fit enough to
> >> cycle the 50km you've committed to do that day and every stop avoided
> >> counts.
> >
> >That is a pathetic excuse.
>
> Excuse? I don't need no steenking excuses.

In which case, please stop whining.

Cheers,
Luke


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