Cycle helmets and speed cameras - the common denominator?



On 9 Jun 2005 03:12:55 -0700 someone who may be "Pyromancer"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>If the lights don't change get off and
>wheel the bike over via pedestrian facilities,


If the cyclist is turning right on a multi-lane road at night and
after say three or four minutes the lights have still not changed to
permit the cyclist to proceed, while they do change to allow
motorists to proceed on other routes, would you suggest that the
cyclist:

1) follows Rule 152 of the Highway Code, "If the traffic lights are
not working, proceed with caution."

2) gets off their vehicle and pushes it across the large expanse of
tarmac with no pedestrian crossing facilities at that location.

3) move forward from the right turn only lane, do a U-turn after the
traffic lights and then turn left into the road they want.

4) cross from the right turn only lane to the left hand side of the
road, then push their vehicle across at the pedestrian lights.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:35:20 +0100,
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> But if the speed limits are wrong then campaign against the speed
>>> limits, not the cameras. But remember that not all speed limits are set
>>> for safety reasons, especially in built up areas.

>>
>> The limits are not the issue. It is whether cameras will reduce the KSI
>> results.
>>

> No. That is not what the speed camera debate is about.
>
> The speed _limit_ debate might be.


It's what this thread was about, the similarity (or otherwise) of the two
road safety issues. Both were allegedly based on assertions and
misrepresentation of research and studies and were proposed to tackle KSI
figures. Both have been challenged by various academics (and also by
crackpots) who dispute the validity of the claims.

> But the speed camera debate is about whether the law should be enforced.


That's another debate.

[...]

--
Matt B

"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of
imagination."
- John Dewey
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:15:05 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>By "locally" I mean within a hundred yards or so of the camera
>>and on the same road.

>
> Sounds like a good argument for having cameras every 300m or so
> then. That is precisely what is being done in places.


Or... scrapping them and tackling the problem (KSI figures) with a more
effective tactic.

Perhaps you think wearing two helmets will solve the cyclist KSI problem?

--
Matt B

"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of
imagination."
- John Dewey
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > Whereas I see none.
> >>
> >> Why am I not surprised ;-)

> >
> > Enlighten me as to why you're not surprised. It may give me an inkling

as
> > to
> > how others perceive me from my posts.

>
> Sorry, it was nothing personal, I was casting you in the uk.r.c mould ;-)


Bummer! You mean it wasn't down to a personal idiosyncrasy, just bl*ody
stereotyping :)
Joking aside it doesn't say much for your open-mindedness.

Pete
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > Whereas I see none.
>> >>
>> >> Why am I not surprised ;-)
>> >
>> > Enlighten me as to why you're not surprised. It may give me an inkling

> as
>> > to
>> > how others perceive me from my posts.

>>
>> Sorry, it was nothing personal, I was casting you in the uk.r.c mould ;-)

>
> Bummer! You mean it wasn't down to a personal idiosyncrasy, just bl*ody
> stereotyping :)
> Joking aside it doesn't say much for your open-mindedness.


You missed the ";-)" then?

--
Matt B

"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of
imagination."
- John Dewey
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Joking aside it doesn't say much for your open-mindedness.

>
> You missed the ";-)" then?


Jim Davidson presents his bigotry as humour - does that make it any better?

clive
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Joking aside it doesn't say much for your open-mindedness.

>>
>> You missed the ";-)" then?

>
> Jim Davidson presents his bigotry as humour - does that make it any
> better?


What's bigotry got to do with this exchange?

As none of the half dozen, or so, previous posters had agreed with the
proposition, why should I _be_ surprised that the latest didn't either?

--
Matt B

"Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of
imagination."
- John Dewey
 
Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>Joking aside it doesn't say much for your open-mindedness.

>>
>>You missed the ";-)" then?

>
>
> Jim Davidson presents his bigotry as humour - does that make it any better?


Exactly. Emoticons create as many problems as they solve. If you cannot
be sure about the sincerity of what was written in words, why should you
be any more sure of the sincerity of the emoticon?

Trying to hide an offensive post behind a smiley does not make it all
right. It just makes it weaselly as well as offensive.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap