Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey

Squashme

On 18 May, 23:35, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> [someone else asked:]
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
> >>>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
> >>>>>> answer.
> >>>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
> >>>> Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
> >>>> question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.
> >>> CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
> >>> again.
> >> What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
> >> responses above aimed at?
> >> Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
> >> for three-part harmony now.
> >>>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
> >>>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
> >>>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
> >>>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
> >>>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
> >>>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
> >>>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
> >>> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
> >>> what cyclists do?
> >> Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
> >> I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
> >> pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
> >> PT user.
> > Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.
>
> Don't be so stupid (not to say offensive).

Poor you. Not much of an argument, is it? I'm stupid and I've offended
you. Well, forgive me, I obviously am too stupid to know what I do.

> >> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
> >> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
> > Have I said that I do?
>
> You could have simply answered the question when put or on any of the
> occasions when it has been repeated.

That was an answer. It may not be the one that you want. Tough.

JNugent

Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
>>>>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtim...r.var.1822947.m...
>>>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>>>> Does speed kill?
>>>>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
>>>>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
>>>>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
>>>>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
>>>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
>>>>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
>>>>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
>>>>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
>>>>>> Meanz Heinz".
>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
>>>>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
>>>>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
>>>>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
>>>>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
>>>>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
>>>>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>>>> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
>>>> be able to understand what you read.
>>>> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
>>> He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
>>> elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
>>> speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
>>> could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
>>> annoying cyclist got in her way.
>>> I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
>> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
>> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.

> Ehhhh????

I'll try to make it easier for you to understand...

In answer to your totally incorrect statement "You defend her speed"
(referring to the motorist who drove through a red light at 45 in a 30
limit), I answered: "I don't. Her speed was illegal".

Now which bit of that is too difficult for you to understand?

I *could* (and perhaps should) have added that I did not defend her
driving through a red light (at whatever speed), but of course, my
answer was to your "point" which was solely about speed.

JNugent

Brimstone wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you
>>> Why do you insist on shattering people's illusions?
>>>
>>> (Wanders off into the subset lamenting the fact that all the
>>> Guinness he's drunk won't improve his health, that there isn't a
>>> sandy beach under an impossibly blue sky with fair maidens cavorting
>>> in the surf wearing skimpy bikinis in every Bounty packet, that he
>>> can't get there by British Rail and that Norman Vaughan won't be
>>> stopping by with a box of chocolates.)
>> You mean that helicopter hovering over the motorway isn't delivering
>> Black Magic?
>> And as for the Flake advert!
>
> If we are to believe Mr Nugent, then sadly not.

"Speed kills" is simply an advertising slogan.

I can understand why Squashme thinks in terms of advertising slogans,
but most of the rest of us can think for ourselves.

Conor

In article <f3d952e1-293a-4ebe-9c44-b84d01a68329
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> On 18 May, 20:18, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <fa507d32-90af-4a47-9390-b3a2fc053cb1
> > @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
> >
> > > So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> > > driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> > > safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> > > If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> > > cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
> >
> > Eating a banana doesn't kill until someone has an allergic reaction to
> > it and dies from asphyxia. Are you saying we should ban bananas?
> >
>
> Yes, I'm with you on that one. If those bananas are killing and
> injuring hundreds of people per year, then you should start a
> campaign. Or have you just been annoyed by one overtaking you at speed
> very closely, or even threatening to rear-end you?
>
Now that would be silly seeing as bananas are inanimate objects.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor

In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...

> "A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
> gone bugger-up?
>
Car collides with tree or other non vehicle object. Single vehicle
collision.

Do you not know what the definition of collision is?

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Tony B

JNugent wrote:

>
> There are only two possibilities, aren't there?

maybe a third - she could be one of those that does 45 EVERYWHERE
regardless of speed limits, you know the ones... forty five in a NSL,
head into a forty limit, still forty five, then straight through the
thirty section (still doing a steady forty five) and back out onto the
countryside again, back to NSL and still do... forty five. In which
case, she would be pretty certain of her speed at any time would she not.

T

Squashme

On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > "A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
> > gone bugger-up?
>
> Car collides with tree or other non vehicle object. Single vehicle
> collision.
>
> Do you not know what the definition of collision is?
>

No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
error. Weird that, for a motorist.

But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
objects, but only one vehicle?

I hardly need to add that the pedestrian, being more likely to be hurt
in such an event, bears the greater moral responsibility for allowing
this singular event to happen. And indeed some of these trees, and
walls, are sited in the most dangerous places. I blame our
grandparents.

Squashme

On 18 May, 23:40, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
> >>>>>>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
> >>>>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtim...r.var.1822947.m...
> >>>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>>>>>> Does speed kill?
> >>>>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
> >>>>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
> >>>>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
> >>>>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
> >>>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
> >>>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
> >>>>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
> >>>>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
> >>>>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
> >>>>>> Meanz Heinz".
> >>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
> >>>>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
> >>>>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> >>>>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> >>>>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> >>>>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> >>>>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
> >>>> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
> >>>> be able to understand what you read.
> >>>> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
> >>> He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
> >>> elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
> >>> speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
> >>> could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
> >>> annoying cyclist got in her way.
> >>> I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
> >> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
> >> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.
> > Ehhhh????
>
> I'll try to make it easier for you to understand...
>
> In answer to your totally incorrect statement "You defend her speed"
> (referring to the motorist who drove through a red light at 45 in a 30
> limit), I answered: "I don't. Her speed was illegal".
>
> Now which bit of that is too difficult for you to understand?

So you are saying that motorists who exceed the speed limit are always
wrong and should not do it? Good. That's a start.

Squashme

On 18 May, 17:21, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 May, 19:57, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Tony Dragon wrote:
> >>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at
> >>>>>>>>>> Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles
> >>>>>>>>> passing the red
> >>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
> >>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going
> >>>>>>> through red
> >>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
> >>>> course.
> >>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
> >>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtim...r.var.1822947.m...
> >>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
> >> Agree with it?
> >> He doesn't recognise the concept.
> > To self-quote from a couple of years ago on uk.legal:-
> > "As a cyclist, I am getting more and more angered by cyclists ignoring
> > red lights at pedestrian crossings, where the cars have managed to
> > stop
> > in time, and where I am waiting to wheel my bike across the road. Just
> > shouting "Buy a car, you [insert favoured term]" does not satisfy any
> > more. If I decide to walk out on to the crossing, when I have a green
> > man signal in my favour, in front of a speeding cyclist who is
> > obviously intent on not stopping, am I breaking a law? The cyclist is,
> > after all, intentionally intimidating me and others from crossing
> > (threatening behaviour?). And yes, I do realise that both of us may be
> > hurt.
> > Is there a right of self-defence in this situation? "
> > Also happens when I am walking across sans bike, of course.
>
> Haven't you (more recently) defended RLJ-jumping by cyclists at
> junctions? And footway-cycling?

Chapter and verse (and context)?

Brimstone

Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:44, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 20:17, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
>>>> 675460064...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>>>> Does speed kill?
>>
>>>> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year
>>>> old car.
>>>> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration
>>>> testing at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting
>>>> that evening.
>>
>>>> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
>>>> series of Top Gear.
>>
>>>> So I guess that's answered that question.
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>> Nobody dies, until they do.
>>
>> So the answer to your earlier question ("Does speed kill?") is "No",
>> isn't it?
>
> Ummm, certainly would be, if you would have accepted that speed does
> kill, if Richard Hammond had died. Like Donald Campbell did.

Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
incident.

John Rowland

Squashme wrote:
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> "A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
>>> gone bugger-up?
>>
>> Car collides with tree or other non vehicle object. Single vehicle
>> collision.
>>
>> Do you not know what the definition of collision is?
>>
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> objects, but only one vehicle?

"Single vehicle collision" is the standard police description of a car
driving into a bridge/tree/ditch.

®i©ardo

Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:09, ®i©ardo <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
>>>>> course.
>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtim...r.var.1822947.m...
>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>> Does speed kill?
>> Not in isolation, no!
>>
>
> Quite so. It takes two to tango. One safespeeder, and one target to
> get annoyingly in the way.
>


....so we are all the architects of our own destinies!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo

Squashme wrote:
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> "A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
>>> gone bugger-up?
>> Car collides with tree or other non vehicle object. Single vehicle
>> collision.
>>
>> Do you not know what the definition of collision is?
>>
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> objects, but only one vehicle?
>
> I hardly need to add that the pedestrian, being more likely to be hurt
> in such an event, bears the greater moral responsibility for allowing
> this singular event to happen. And indeed some of these trees, and
> walls, are sited in the most dangerous places. I blame our
> grandparents.

Got it! Your real name is Doug!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Roger Merriman

Brimstone <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Squashme wrote:
> > On 18 May, 20:44, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 20:17, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
> >>>> 675460064...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
> >>
> >>>>> Does speed kill?
> >>
> >>>> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year
> >>>> old car.
> >>>> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration
> >>>> testing at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting
> >>>> that evening.
> >>
> >>>> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
> >>>> series of Top Gear.
> >>
> >>>> So I guess that's answered that question.
> >>
> >>>> --
> >>
> >>> Nobody dies, until they do.
> >>
> >> So the answer to your earlier question ("Does speed kill?") is "No",
> >> isn't it?
> >
> > Ummm, certainly would be, if you would have accepted that speed does
> > kill, if Richard Hammond had died. Like Donald Campbell did.
>
> Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
> incident.

it doesn't help though, and all that energy means if something happens
one has less time and more energy to change.

it is a IF though driving at 100mph doesn't mean one will die. nor is
nessarlly that much more of a danger than 60 or what ever the speed
limit is. limits are arbtury and do not cover all situations. so it can
be safe to be a fair amount above the limit, and sometimes the limit is
not a safe speed.

the trouble is that people get used to risks because it hasn't killed
them yet, driving at high speed in the driving rain, running red lights
etc, it doesn't have too feel it to be a very risky operation.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com