Espirit de corps



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:23:25 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>... So far as traffic lights are concerned, the offence is in 'propelling' a vehicle over the stop
>line when the lights are on red (you don't even need to enter the intersection to commit the
>offence)....

Ah! Now, does that mean that someone who *freewheels* through the red light isn't committing
an offence?

Pete Barrett
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

> I'm not so sure of that. I mean, would putting them in the same dungeon be fair justice for either
> of them, ? I'm sure some liberal lawyer would claim it was excessive punishment.

As long as the Inverness One is issued with bag, paper, each, one, hairstyle for the covering of, we
could probably avoid that charge...

--
Guy
===
WARNING: May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Vincent Wilcox wrote:

> I've often wondered whether or not drivers would be more cautious if you had what appeared to be
> an assault-rifle lashed accross your back. Obviously not a good idea. :)

Anecdotal evidence from 'melica suggests that carrying a Very Obvious Gun while cycling does indeed
persuade the passing motorist to Behave.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Vincent Wilcox wrote:

> I've often wondered whether or not drivers would be more cautious if you had what appeared to be
> an assault-rifle lashed accross your back. Obviously not a good idea. :)

Anecdotal evidence from 'melica suggests that carrying a Very Obvious Gun while cycling does indeed
persuade the passing motorist to Behave.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I must stop reading NGs because I have this continual urge to try to
> correct
> > misrepresentations of the findings of research reports, particularly
when
> > they appear to be adding oxygen to the flames.
>
> This is not a misrepresentation of the overall findings of the research report, if you read it in
> the round, and the section quoted is directly relevant to the point at issue.

Come, come Guy, your post followed up on mine in which I wrote:

"Anyway if you honestly believe that "those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here will
be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users" is untrue you must be so paranoid that
a visit to the quack is inorder."

We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

"This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict with
motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of hostility
or even active aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate the accuracy
of that impression.

In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any evidence of aggression towards
cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

There is a difference between negativity and aggression, you know. The TRL report appears to have
tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive towards cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be
negative towards drivers, the thesis is unsubstantiated.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I must stop reading NGs because I have this continual urge to try to
> correct
> > misrepresentations of the findings of research reports, particularly
when
> > they appear to be adding oxygen to the flames.
>
> This is not a misrepresentation of the overall findings of the research report, if you read it in
> the round, and the section quoted is directly relevant to the point at issue.

Come, come Guy, your post followed up on mine in which I wrote:

"Anyway if you honestly believe that "those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here will
be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users" is untrue you must be so paranoid that
a visit to the quack is inorder."

We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

"This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict with
motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of hostility
or even active aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate the accuracy
of that impression.

In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any evidence of aggression towards
cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

There is a difference between negativity and aggression, you know. The TRL report appears to have
tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive towards cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be
negative towards drivers, the thesis is unsubstantiated.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
James Hodson wrote:

> It would seem that like salutes like.

Was my experience in the early '70's when my old man was eccentric enough to drive a Saab...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
James Hodson wrote:

> It would seem that like salutes like.

Was my experience in the early '70's when my old man was eccentric enough to drive a Saab...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Vincent Wilcox wrote:

> I've often wondered whether or not drivers would be more cautious if you had what appeared to be
> an assault-rifle lashed accross your back. Obviously not a good idea. :)

Anecdotal evidence from 'melica suggests that carrying a Very Obvious Gun while cycling does indeed
persuade the passing motorist to Behave.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
"Trevor Barton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> However, my interpretation of what I wrote is in line with the one just quoted: That in general
> motorists who *do* deliberately target cyclists are *also* the ones who deliberately target other
> road users.

And when the inevitable happens, who is more likely to die? Does this colour their judgement at the
final critical moment when they have to decide to brake or carry on? Would Mister Fat ******* Range
Rover Scum Cut His Goolies Off The ******* have rammed into a vehicle with real potential to damage
his precious penis extension?

> Of course I can't be sure that there are not nutters out there who have a fixation with cyclists
> and who will deliberately target them

But we do know that their are people out there with a cyclist fixation who use some extremely
aggressive language. I remember a particular Tony Parsons (spit, spit) column in particular.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Trevor Barton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> However, my interpretation of what I wrote is in line with the one just quoted: That in general
> motorists who *do* deliberately target cyclists are *also* the ones who deliberately target other
> road users.

And when the inevitable happens, who is more likely to die? Does this colour their judgement at the
final critical moment when they have to decide to brake or carry on? Would Mister Fat ******* Range
Rover Scum Cut His Goolies Off The ******* have rammed into a vehicle with real potential to damage
his precious penis extension?

> Of course I can't be sure that there are not nutters out there who have a fixation with cyclists
> and who will deliberately target them

But we do know that their are people out there with a cyclist fixation who use some extremely
aggressive language. I remember a particular Tony Parsons (spit, spit) column in particular.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Pete Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:23:25 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... So far as traffic lights are concerned, the offence is in 'propelling' a vehicle over the
> >stop line when the lights are on red (you don't even
need
> >to enter the intersection to commit the offence)....
>
> Ah! Now, does that mean that someone who *freewheels* through the red light isn't committing an
> offence?
>

An interesting idea, but not very likely. The offence is in failing to comply with the indication of
a traffic sign. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 has it that "the red
signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line",
but the Road Traffic Act 1988, which creates an offence out of not complying with the indication,
has it that "36.-(1) 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." - so the strictly speaking the sign requires not proceeding, but the offence is in
'propelling'. However, it doesn't actually say you have to be propelling at the moment it crosses
the line in order to commit the offence - even if you freewheel you must have propelled first to
have any freewheel speed. In any event, the Magistrate's Court Guide, which is the magistrates'
bible when it comes to deciding what the law requires, says it's an offence "if any part of the
vehicle 'crosses' the stop line" - so they think it's enough to 'proceed' over it. Not worth trying
on as a defence, I should think!

Rich
 
"Pete Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:23:25 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... So far as traffic lights are concerned, the offence is in 'propelling' a vehicle over the
> >stop line when the lights are on red (you don't even
need
> >to enter the intersection to commit the offence)....
>
> Ah! Now, does that mean that someone who *freewheels* through the red light isn't committing an
> offence?
>

An interesting idea, but not very likely. The offence is in failing to comply with the indication of
a traffic sign. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 has it that "the red
signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line",
but the Road Traffic Act 1988, which creates an offence out of not complying with the indication,
has it that "36.-(1) 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." - so the strictly speaking the sign requires not proceeding, but the offence is in
'propelling'. However, it doesn't actually say you have to be propelling at the moment it crosses
the line in order to commit the offence - even if you freewheel you must have propelled first to
have any freewheel speed. In any event, the Magistrate's Court Guide, which is the magistrates'
bible when it comes to deciding what the law requires, says it's an offence "if any part of the
vehicle 'crosses' the stop line" - so they think it's enough to 'proceed' over it. Not worth trying
on as a defence, I should think!

Rich
 
Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I must stop reading NGs because I have this continual urge to try to
> correct
> > misrepresentations of the findings of research reports, particularly
when
> > they appear to be adding oxygen to the flames.
>
> This is not a misrepresentation of the overall findings of the research report, if you read it in
> the round, and the section quoted is directly relevant to the point at issue.

Come, come Guy, your post followed up on mine in which I wrote:

"Anyway if you honestly believe that "those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here will
be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users" is untrue you must be so paranoid that
a visit to the quack is inorder."

We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

"This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict with
motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of hostility
or even active aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate the accuracy
of that impression.

In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any evidence of aggression towards
cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

There is a difference between negativity and aggression, you know. The TRL report appears to have
tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive towards cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be
negative towards drivers, the thesis is unsubstantiated.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
James Hodson wrote:

> It would seem that like salutes like.

Was my experience in the early '70's when my old man was eccentric enough to drive a Saab...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
"Trevor Barton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> However, my interpretation of what I wrote is in line with the one just quoted: That in general
> motorists who *do* deliberately target cyclists are *also* the ones who deliberately target other
> road users.

And when the inevitable happens, who is more likely to die? Does this colour their judgement at the
final critical moment when they have to decide to brake or carry on? Would Mister Fat ******* Range
Rover Scum Cut His Goolies Off The ******* have rammed into a vehicle with real potential to damage
his precious penis extension?

> Of course I can't be sure that there are not nutters out there who have a fixation with cyclists
> and who will deliberately target them

But we do know that their are people out there with a cyclist fixation who use some extremely
aggressive language. I remember a particular Tony Parsons (spit, spit) column in particular.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Pete Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:23:25 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... So far as traffic lights are concerned, the offence is in 'propelling' a vehicle over the
> >stop line when the lights are on red (you don't even
need
> >to enter the intersection to commit the offence)....
>
> Ah! Now, does that mean that someone who *freewheels* through the red light isn't committing an
> offence?
>

An interesting idea, but not very likely. The offence is in failing to comply with the indication of
a traffic sign. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 has it that "the red
signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line",
but the Road Traffic Act 1988, which creates an offence out of not complying with the indication,
has it that "36.-(1) 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." - so the strictly speaking the sign requires not proceeding, but the offence is in
'propelling'. However, it doesn't actually say you have to be propelling at the moment it crosses
the line in order to commit the offence - even if you freewheel you must have propelled first to
have any freewheel speed. In any event, the Magistrate's Court Guide, which is the magistrates'
bible when it comes to deciding what the law requires, says it's an offence "if any part of the
vehicle 'crosses' the stop line" - so they think it's enough to 'proceed' over it. Not worth trying
on as a defence, I should think!

Rich
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The TRL
> report appears to have tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive
towards
> cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be negative towards drivers,
the
> thesis is unsubstantiated.

Sigh. Of course, I meant to write, "whilst drivers can be negative towards cyclists".

Stupid me.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The TRL
> report appears to have tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive
towards
> cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be negative towards drivers,
the
> thesis is unsubstantiated.

Sigh. Of course, I meant to write, "whilst drivers can be negative towards cyclists".

Stupid me.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
> Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

> "This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
> cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict
> with motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of
> hostility or even
active
> aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate
the
> accuracy of that impression. In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any
evidence
> of aggression towards cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

I know - I have read the report.

The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know any better, but there is a
minority who do it deliberately. There is also a definite tendency even among those who in their
saner moments wouldn't dream of uttering such foolishness to use it as a way of hitting back when
they know they are in the wrong. Like the woman who ventured the opinion that her dooring one of The
Regulars was his fault for not wearing a helmet.

There is an undoubted tendency in the press to blame cyclists for all the world's ills. This is
completely unrelated to the fact that the journos are sitting in their expensive penis extensions
going nowhere while the cyclists are making rapid and trouble-free progress, obviously.

There is a tendency, seen on uk.tosspot and elsewhere, to believe that a cyclist's responsibility
not to hold up following traffic carries greater weight than a driver's responsibility to apply due
care and attention. We "force" people into dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

There is a strong tendency for drivers to believe that where cycyle "facilites" exist we MUST use
them. I have been harangued more than once for failing to use shared-use footpaths alongside wide
urban roads with no problem passing. I'm not causing anybody any inconvenience, but I don't think
it's appropriate for a grown man moving at speeds over 20mph to be riding on the pavement,
especially when it will make my journey slower and less safe.

Nobody's saying that these are majority views, but they are views held by a highly vocal minority,
very much like the speedophiles with their camera obsessions, and their loudness and repetiveness
moves the mainstream of acceptable opinion in their direction. If the Daily Mail can say all
cyclists are red-light-running scofflaws who should be run over, surely that validates my view that
this particular cyclist should get out of my way immediately, and if he won't then it's his fault if
I overtake dangerously.

Is it really like that? I don't know. I don't understand what goes on in the "mind" of someone who
would rather risk three people's lives than be ten seconds late in the traffic jam which exists
every single morning without fail a few hundred yards ahead.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.