View Full Version : Red Lights And The Mail
I haven't read Ms Hoey's rant so I don't want to comment on it in the other threads: I just wanted
to share a rather ironic anecdote.
Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never seem to create as much danger
in doing so than when motorists do the same thing. In fact, I've only ever seen one collision
caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light. This was at the Elephant in South London where a cyclist,
seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around her, simply ploughed into a group of
pedestrians crossing on, what to them, was a green light. The cyclist was not, as far as I could
tell, wearing lycra; she was, however, carrying in the basket of her sit-up-and-beg town bike, a
copy of the Daily Mail.
If I was the kind of person who found comfort in making some sense of a chaotic world by making wild
extrapolations on limited observations, I would conclude that all Mail readers should be kept off
the roads.
--
Rob
Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and benefit.
"Robert Bruce" <robatanalytical-dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> wrote in message
news:3f93a352_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> I haven't read Ms Hoey's rant so I don't want to comment on it in the
other
> threads: I just wanted to share a rather ironic anecdote.
>
James Hodson kindly scanned a copy ...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image8.gif 1.16 MB
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image9.gif 138 KB
>If I was the kind of person who found comfort in making some sense of a chaotic world by making
>wild extrapolations on limited observations, I would conclude that all Mail readers should be kept
>off the roads.
LOL!!
Cheers, helen s
This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove the dependency on
fame & fortune from h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd
Robert Bruce wrote:
> I haven't read Ms Hoey's rant so I don't want to comment on it in the other threads: I just wanted
> to share a rather ironic anecdote.
>
> Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never seem to create as much
> danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing.
I've avoided a collision twice in recent months with cyclist going through red lights. One at a t
junction who went straight through forcing me to take avoiding action between him and the car
following me out of the junction. Once when I had to pull back my daughter on a pelican crossing
when the cyclist sailed through as we were part way across.
While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
roads dangerous for other users.
pk
<snip snip>
>Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never seem to create as much danger
>in doing so than when motorists do the same thing. In fact, I've only ever seen one collision
>caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light. This was at the Elephant in South London where a cyclist,
>seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around her, simply ploughed into a group of
>pedestrians crossing on, what to them, was a green light. The cyclist was not, as far as I could
>tell, wearing lycra; she was, however, carrying in the basket of her sit-up-and-beg town bike, a
>copy of the Daily Mail.
I can't remember who mentioned it, but I think it helps to be both a driver and a cyclist to see
each others' points of view, so I hope my view is balanced. Unfortunately unless the law is changed
so that cyclists can legally ignore a red light, doing so will continue to cause ire amongst
drivers, especially those that are non cyclists.
I don't think it matters how dangerous it is. Either we choose to abide by the or we break it.
I've never seen a cyclist in an accident due to running a red light but it doesn't mean that it
doesn't happen.
<snip>
Yesterday evening I went out to meet a friend. Unfortunately my current knee problem prohibits me
from cycling so I took the tube (another dangerous form of transport!). I had read the thread(s) on
Kate Hoey earlier so I decided I would see if I could spot any cyclists running red lights. Within a
500m stretch between Green Park and Picadilly I saw 3 cyclists pedalling straight through reds.
After I met my friend I forgot so I stopped counting.
I haven't read all of the threads here but will do so. I haven't yet seen anyone say too much about
'lycra clad'. If this is seen as a sign of a rogue cyclist, then I see this as a problem. I've tried
trouser clips and 'trousers' with elasticated ankles but other than lycra I haven't found anything
that won't catch on my chainrings.
"PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bn0btk$6g4$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
> roads dangerous for other users.
I suspect many here would agree wholeheartedly.
I wouldn't deliberately go through a red, I think that cyclists as road users should abide by the
law. Unfortunately I did recently go through a red light (at a Pelican crossing too!) fortunately,
although no thanks to me, I didn't hit anyone, the guy hadn't started to cross. I had my head down
going into a strong wind (which is no excuse I know) along a stretch of road where the crossing is
quite new. Shook me up a bit as I've always considered myself a careful and considerate cyclist.
Perhaps a good reason for looking at some glasses/goggles for those cold, windy days.
Paul.
PK tried to scribble ...
> Robert Bruce wrote:
>> I haven't read Ms Hoey's rant so I don't want to comment on it in the other threads: I just
>> wanted to share a rather ironic anecdote.
>>
>> Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never seem to create as much
>> danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing.
>
> I've avoided a collision twice in recent months with cyclist going through red lights. One at a t
> junction who went straight through forcing me to take avoiding action between him and the car
> following me out of the junction. Once when I had to pull back my daughter on a pelican crossing
> when the cyclist sailed through as we were part way across.
That's similar to what I had to do once with one of my sons. The cyclist, trying to run the red
light, crashed while apparently trying to avoid pedestrians crossing the Pelican crossing on green,
and my son just didn't see him. I pulled him back just as the bike grazed his legs.
> While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
> roads dangerous for other users.
Whole-heartedly agreed with .. ;)
--
Digweed '79 Beamish RL 250, '85 Swift Corvette, '95 Dyna-Tech CroMo Comp, '97 Landrover Discovery
300 Tdi, '03 Associated RC10 B4 .... ;)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:03:32 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com>
wrote this:-
>While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
>roads dangerous for other users.
Where was this, "defence of cyclists who flout the law"? I have not seen one in this newsgroup, so
where was it?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
>"PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bn0btk$6g4$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>
>> While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
>> roads dangerous for other users.
>
>I suspect many here would agree wholeheartedly.
>
I agree too.
David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:03:32 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com>
> wrote this:-
>
>> While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make the
>> roads dangerous for other users.
>
> Where was this, "defence of cyclists who flout the law"? I have not seen one in this newsgroup, so
> where was it?
#>>Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never
seem to create as much danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing.....In fact, I've
only ever seen one collision caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light<<
From this thread and many times in previous threads.
Personally, i've never seen an accident caused by a car running a red light so it can't be a real
problem, can it?
pk
PK wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:03:32 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com>
>> wrote this:-
>>
>>> While Hoey's rant was bollocks so to is the defence of cyclists who flout the law and DO make
>>> the roads dangerous for other users.
>>
>> Where was this, "defence of cyclists who flout the law"? I have not seen one in this newsgroup,
>> so where was it?
>
> #>>Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they
> never seem to create as much danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing.....In fact,
> I've only ever seen one collision caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light<<
>
> From this thread and many times in previous threads.
>
> Personally, i've never seen an accident caused by a car running a red light so it can't be a real
> problem, can it?
>
The potential accident of a car running a red to pedestrians, cyclist and other motorists is far
greater than a cyclist carefully negotiating a red. Nearly every time I run a red as it changes
(rarely) and think I ought to speed up to make it over I look behind and 3 or 4 cars are following
me. Invariably 1 of them then gets stuck in the centre of the junction as there is no space on the
other side. There are enough idiots out there on all forms of transport. Any animal or alien would
look at us as a whole as we look at car drivers and Kate Hoeys look at cyclists and describe us all
as stupid - and they wouldn't be far wrong.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:41:22 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <spam.trap100@btinternet.com>
wrote this:-
>> Where was this, "defence of cyclists who flout the law"? I have not seen one in this newsgroup,
>> so where was it?
>
>#>>Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never
>seem to create as much danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing.....In fact, I've
>only ever seen one collision caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light<<
That is not a defence. It is an observation on the effects of lawbreaking by different groups.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
ouch wrote:
> <snip snip>
>
>> Although I often see cyclists cruising through red lights, they never seem to create as much
>> danger in doing so than when motorists do the same thing. In fact, I've only ever seen one
>> collision caused by a cyclist ignoring a red light. This was at the Elephant in South London
>> where a cyclist, seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around her, simply ploughed into a
>> group of pedestrians crossing on, what to them, was a green light. The cyclist was not, as far as
>> I could tell, wearing lycra; she was, however, carrying in the basket of her sit-up-and-beg town
>> bike, a copy of the Daily Mail.
>
> I can't remember who mentioned it, but I think it helps to be both a driver and a cyclist to see
> each others' points of view, so I hope my view is balanced. Unfortunately unless the law is
> changed so that cyclists can legally ignore a red light, doing so will continue to cause ire
> amongst drivers, especially those that are non cyclists.
>
--snip
But does it annoy them because it's dangerous and they might be in an accident? I think not. If so
drivers wouldn't speed up at ambers etc. It annoys them because someone on a relatively cheap
machine is doing something that their 1000s of pounds worth of machinery can't - progress forwards.
Same reason as many people consider asylum seekers or prisoners 'lucky' as they get benefits,
education etc. It's just the same age old prejudice by 1 group towards another because it is
perceived they have some advantage that they will never have. Which is why Hoey thinks cyclists
should pay and the government think students etc should pay. It's one group against another. Divide
and conquor. Motorists used to think bikers thought they "owned the road". Now they have turned
their attention to cyclists as they have no voice and no-one to turn to about the state of the
roads, fuel prices, congestion charging, speed cameras etc and all the other things they consider
bad. Cyclists are a convenient scapegoat.
<snip snip>
>But does it annoy them because it's dangerous and they might be in an accident? I think not. If so
>drivers wouldn't speed up at ambers etc. It annoys them because someone on a relatively cheap
>machine is doing something that their 1000s of pounds worth of machinery can't - progress forwards.
<snip snip>
I don't dispute that at all but whatever the reason it still happens.
An addnedum to my previous post: I see more drivers run red lights than cyclists! It doesn't mean
that it's the right thing to do though.
"Stephen (aka steford)" <R_E_m_O_v_Esteford.usenetT_H_i_S@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bn1d8s$s3ijc$1@ID-62064.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> But does it annoy them because it's dangerous and they might be in an
> accident? I think not. If so drivers wouldn't speed up at ambers etc. It annoys them because
> someone on a relatively cheap machine is doing
something
> that their 1000s of pounds worth of machinery can't - progress forwards. Same reason as many
> people consider asylum seekers or prisoners 'lucky' as they get benefits, education etc. It's just
> the same age old prejudice by
1
> group towards another because it is perceived they have some advantage
that
> they will never have. Which is why Hoey thinks cyclists should pay and the government think
> students etc should pay. It's one group against another. Divide and conquor. Motorists used to
> think bikers thought they "owned the road". Now they have turned their attention to cyclists as
> they have no voice and no-one to turn to about the state of the roads, fuel prices, congestion
> charging, speed cameras etc and all the other things they consider bad. Cyclists are a convenient
> scapegoat.
Ironic humour or complete troll?
pk
Originally posted by Pk
"Stephen (aka steford)" >> But does it annoy them because it's dangerous and they might be in an
> accident? I think not. Cyclists are a convenient
> scapegoat.
Ironic humour or complete troll?
pk
you or him?
:-)
best wishes
james
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:32:09 +0100 someone who may be "Stephen \(aka steford\)"
<R_E_m_O_v_Esteford.usenetT_H_i_S@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>Motorists used to think bikers thought they "owned the road". Now they have turned their attention
>to cyclists as they have no voice and no-one to turn to about the state of the roads, fuel prices,
>congestion charging, speed cameras etc and all the other things they consider bad. Cyclists are a
>convenient scapegoat.
I'm sure that what one might call the unacceptable face of motoring sincerely believe this. However,
they have a Motorist's Forum, unlike any other group. Fuel prices are very much something it puts to
government as that is why it was set up, but no doubt it also covers other things. Complaining about
the state of the roads in Edinburgh involves a free telephone call or e-mail and it does (sometimes)
get things fixed.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
ouch wrote:
> An addnedum to my previous post: I see more drivers run red lights than cyclists! It doesn't mean
> that it's the right thing to do though.
I suspect this may depend on where one rides. On my manor it's definitely the other way round.
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:00:32 GMT, "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote:
>James Hodson kindly scanned a copy ...
>
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image8.gif 1.16 MB
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image9.gif 138 KB
Ta Eylob
I hereby promise not to read the Daily mail, the Mail on Sunday, or any other tabloid when cycling
in a cycle lane (not that I often do)
James
--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
