Four years jail...

[Beav]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:22 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 29, 5:15 pm, "TOG@Toil" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
>>>>>>>> through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and
>>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>>> a dozen of the other, surely?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
>>>>>>>excessive to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But an understandable feeling of revenge under the circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, not at all. Can you explain who feels they need to be
>>>>> revenged here?
>>>>
>>>>Possibly the family of the numptie on the bike?
>>>
>>> Were the family of the deceased in this thread?
>>
>>Who knows who reads this?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Someone used the phrase "but an understandable feeling of revenge under
> the circumstances".
>
> I didn't understand *who* in this thread would be looking for revenge.
>
> That's all.

But you didn't add the "in this thread" bit and I merely said "Possibly" the
family etc.

Now I've got a nice sharp razor here if you want to split some more hairs.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Pete Fisher]

In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
<[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>> If you read my other posts, you will see that I accept that, given the
>> current sentencing guidelines and the assumption that the cyclist's
>> actions were such that anybody driving within the limit and not texting
>> would have avoided him, the sentence was correct.
>>
>> I still would like to know if his failure to observe the red light was
>> taken in to account at all.
>
>I would think so myself, or more precisely, I'm sure his story was put to
>the court.
>>

Though not in person.

>> Otherwise, it seems to me that I am required to drive everywhere at 5 mph,
>> in case a cyclist should decide to whizz down a steep hill as fast as they
>> can and through a red light in to my path and expect me to be able to
>> avoid them.
>
>Don't even try to avoid 'em, just don't be using the phone when you make
>contact.
>
>

The second bit is easy enough. So far as the first bit, TBF, I think at
least a bit of fairly hard braking might be advisable.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: [email protected] |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

[Ace]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:08:37 +0000, in
<1id635q.1460t74tfxz40N%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Pretty much yes, unless there is a yellow diamond sign to advise that
>> that you have priority. 2nd last sign on this page
>> http://www.alltravelbelgium.com/Belgium/Car_Rental/Road_Signs.htm
>>
>> It used to be that the driver to the right lost the priority if he
>> stopped but recent case law has confirmed that the priority is absolute
>> even in that situation. It's mostly that case in towns and smaller
>> B-type roads and it's nearly caught me out a couple of times.
>
>The PaD thing has bloody nearly caught me out a couple of times, always
>in minor villages and towns where you still find it from time to time.

There's quite a few around us, including one where I dropped the
gixxer some years back as I failed to realise that tht dopy cow coming
from the right leg of a Y junction (upside-down), while I came from
the left, was intending to turn down my road rather than going
straight on. As Blaney, who was over collecting the 400-4 I sold him,
commented she had "the legal, if not the moral, right of way".

Bloody stupid rule, it is.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

[Cab]

Ace wrote:

> There's quite a few around us, including one where I dropped the
> gixxer some years back as I failed to realise that tht dopy cow coming
> from the right leg of a Y junction (upside-down), while I came from
> the left, was intending to turn down my road rather than going
> straight on. As Blaney, who was over collecting the 400-4 I sold him,
> commented she had "the legal, if not the moral, right of way".
>
> Bloody stupid rule, it is.

Yup. And when zipping around in the sticks, watch out for the numpties
that forget PaD doesn't apply to the roundabouts.

--
Cab :^) - I'm dyslex-spic apparently
Z1000ABS, TDR 125
UKRMMA#10 (KOTL), IbW#015, BoB#4, POTM#3, SKA#1
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org

 

[CT]

Hog wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

I suspect that's because he's working out how he can apply the
"congestion charge" to cyclists.

--
Chris

 

[Phil Launchbury]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is why it's
>> illegal to go through a red traffic light.

> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
> are against them.

Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Phil Launchbury wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is why it's
>>> illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>
>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
>> are against them.
>
>Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).

Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it was
legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except pedestrians"
or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red traffic
light".

 

[Roger Thorpe]

gbzzl wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:09:57 +0200, Geo wrote:
>
>
>>"TOG@Toil" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>>
>>>I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
>>>through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
>>>a dozen of the other, surely?
>>
>>We had this discussion regarding texting while driving some time ago here; I
>>am very much against that sort of behaviour (and that incident shows
>>why-you're ) but I still think the verdict is a harsh. The rider went
>>through a red light and wasn't even wearing a helmet, that's really tempting
>>fate, unless you're in a Range Rover (where you tempt other people's fates).
>>Fair enough, she is responsible for the death of a person, but the way the
>>incident is presented, the accident happened mainly because of his rather
>>than her stupidity. It'd be a different story if she were speeding at the
>>same time.
>>
>>I still think that texting while driving is wrong and worthy of punishment.
>
>
>
> She was speeding, from the article "The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire,
> was driving at 45mph in a 30mph zone." I too don't like the tone in which
> the item is presented but for entirely the opposite reasons you give, the
> cyclist going through a red light part could very well have been arriving
> at a light as it was changing, cyclists take longer to build up speed,
> to clear junctions and can often get caught in dangerous situations due to
> the timing of lights. As well as motorbikes, I ride bicycles and I am
> never more aware of my vulnerability in traffic than on a pushbike, enough
> to dissuade me from riding due to pushy aggressive moronic car drivers.
>
> His stupidity (if any) pales into insignificance compared with hers.
>
>
This seems right to me.
It's difficult to say what the cyclist did on this occasion and the only
details that we have is the single phrase that he "cycled through the
red light". If you take the time to look at the crash site on google
maps then you'll see that this is a really unfriendly junction to any
cyclist, and that the guy's transit time would have been quite long.
he had to - in effect cross a dual carriageway at a shallow angle.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&output=html&hl=en&q=southampton&zoom=3&zp=LUILILLI

As I understand it he was travelling east to west on A3024, she was
travelling from southeast to west on A3057.
It's hard to see anyone imagining that this is a set of lights they
could just "jump". The truth is that we'll never know what he thought he
was doing, but I can see that it was at least possible that he was doing
what he thought was prudent and safe. It doesn't absolve him, but it
starts to look understandable.
Roger Thorpe

 

[Phil Launchbury]

In article <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Phil Launchbury wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is why it's
>>>> illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>>
>>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
>>> are against them.
>>
>>Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>
> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it was
> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except pedestrians"
> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red traffic
> light".

Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.

Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)

Phil.

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

 

[platypus]

Phil Launchbury wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan
> Braggins wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Phil
>> Launchbury wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is
>>>>> why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the
>>>> lights are against them.
>>>
>>> Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>>
>> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it
>> was
>> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except
>> pedestrians"
>> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red
>> traffic light".
>
> Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
> for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.
>
> Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
> vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)

Cyclists are pedestrians. Look at the evidence:

They use pavements.
They use pedestrian crossings.
They ignore traffic lights and other signals.

--
Spam: 220207818601

 

[Beav]

"Pete Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
> <[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>> If you read my other posts, you will see that I accept that, given the
>>> current sentencing guidelines and the assumption that the cyclist's
>>> actions were such that anybody driving within the limit and not texting
>>> would have avoided him, the sentence was correct.
>>>
>>> I still would like to know if his failure to observe the red light was
>>> taken in to account at all.
>>
>>I would think so myself, or more precisely, I'm sure his story was put to
>>the court.
>>>
>
> Though not in person.

That would've caused a few raised eyebrows.
>
>>> Otherwise, it seems to me that I am required to drive everywhere at 5
>>> mph,
>>> in case a cyclist should decide to whizz down a steep hill as fast as
>>> they
>>> can and through a red light in to my path and expect me to be able to
>>> avoid them.
>>
>>Don't even try to avoid 'em, just don't be using the phone when you make
>>contact.
>>
>>
>
> The second bit is easy enough. So far as the first bit, TBF, I think at
> least a bit of fairly hard braking might be advisable.

Oh aye, braking is fine if it's done in a straight line.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[The Older Gentleman]

Beav <[email protected]> wrote:

> When I were a lad the examiner on my car test told me "Ped's ALWAYS have
> right of way, not matter who tells you differently".

Good advice, is that.

One that has stuck in my mind from my learner days is: "Always remember
that when you're driving a car, you're handling a loaded gun."


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 

[Squashme]

On 3 Mar, 21:50, "platypus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Launchbury wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Alan
> > Braggins wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Phil
> >> Launchbury wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
> >>>> JNugent wrote:
>
> >>>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is
> >>>>> why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>
> >>>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the
> >>>> lights are against them.
>
> >>> Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>
> >> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it
> >> was
> >> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except
> >> pedestrians"
> >> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red
> >> traffic light".
>
> > Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
> > for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.
>
> > Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
> > vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)
>
> Cyclists are pedestrians. Look at the evidence:
>
> They use pavements.
> They use pedestrian crossings.
> They ignore traffic lights and other signals.
>

And similarly, of course, they squash easily.

And motorists also treat them as lesser beings.

 

[Dan White]

"The Older Gentleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1id9nkf.k8jcvdb8dxp6N%[email protected]...
<snip>
>
> One that has stuck in my mind from my learner days is: "Always remember
> that when you're driving a car, you're handling a loaded gun."

You did drive-by shooting in your lessons? Did you learn in L.A?!


--
Dan White
([email protected])
Perform an exorcism when replying.

 

[Nick]

In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Thorpe <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's difficult to say what the cyclist did on this occasion and the only
>details that we have is the single phrase that he "cycled through the
>red light". If you take the time to look at the crash site on google
>maps then you'll see that this is a really unfriendly junction to any
>cyclist, and that the guy's transit time would have been quite long.
>he had to - in effect cross a dual carriageway at a shallow angle.
>
>http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&output=html&hl=en&q=southampton&zoom=3&zp=LUILILLI
>
>As I understand it he was travelling east to west on A3024, she was
>travelling from southeast to west on A3057.
>It's hard to see anyone imagining that this is a set of lights they
>could just "jump". The truth is that we'll never know what he thought he
>was doing, but I can see that it was at least possible that he was doing
>what he thought was prudent and safe. It doesn't absolve him, but it
>starts to look understandable.

That's a funny old route to take on a bicycle: there are parallel roads
just to the north which are residential and much quieter (and signed as
the main cycle route).

You do see people cycling down there but it can be very exciting since
the traffic is travelling at 50mph plus by that point - it's a 30 limit
but changes to 50 just after the lights so people start accelerating
early.

Nick

 

[Nick]

Phil Launchbury wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Phil Launchbury wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is why it's
>>>>> illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>>>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
>>>> are against them.
>>> Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it was
>> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except pedestrians"
>> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red traffic
>> light".
>
> Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
> for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.
>
> Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
> vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)
>
> Phil.
>

Mr Nugent was putting forward a hypothesis that the reason cyclists were
banned from going through red lights was because although they did not
present a great risk to other road users in themselves, they could cause
motorists to take evasive action which would endanger other road users.

It seemed to me that the same argument would be true for pedestrians and
hence it was incongruous that they were legally allowed cross against
the lights.

It is quite a simple argument to understand. You might want to dispute
it but I would have hoped that you could follow it.

 

[Nick]

Squashme wrote:
> On 3 Mar, 21:50, "platypus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Phil Launchbury wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Alan
>>> Braggins wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Phil
>>>> Launchbury wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is
>>>>>>> why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>>>>>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the
>>>>>> lights are against them.
>>>>> Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>>>> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it
>>>> was
>>>> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except
>>>> pedestrians"
>>>> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red
>>>> traffic light".
>>> Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
>>> for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.
>>> Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
>>> vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)
>> Cyclists are pedestrians. Look at the evidence:
>>
>> They use pavements.
>> They use pedestrian crossings.
>> They ignore traffic lights and other signals.
>>
>
> And similarly, of course, they squash easily.
>
> And motorists also treat them as lesser beings.
>

In reality cyclists are a bit like pedestrians and a bit like cars. If
they are tootling along a 3 or 4 miles an hour on the pavement they are
similar to a pedestrian.

If they are going at 25 mph + they are dangerous to pedestrians like a
car is. It is also true that some cyclists regard pedestrians as lesser
beings.

However as you say unlike a motorists they do squash easy and hence have
a very real vested interest in avoiding collisions.

 

[Phil Launchbury]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
> Phil Launchbury wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>> Cyclist != Pedestrian (as far as I know anyway).
>>> Well done. But for full marks, point out either where Nick said it was
>>> legal for cyclists to cross, or where JNugent said "except pedestrians"
>>> or "for cyclists" in the phrase "it's illegal to go through a red traffic
>>> light".
>>
>> Well - I was assuming that when Nick said that it was perfectly legal
>> for pedestrians that he wasn't doing an utter non-sequitur.
>>
>> Turns out that he was (and was incapable of assuming the context of 'a
>> vehicle of some kind' - which includes cycles - on the 'illegal' tag.)
>
> Mr Nugent was putting forward a hypothesis that the reason cyclists were
> banned from going through red lights was because although they did not
> present a great risk to other road users in themselves, they could cause
> motorists to take evasive action which would endanger other road users.

Or (more simply) they are counted as traffic and therefore have to obey
the traffic regulations..

> It seemed to me that the same argument would be true for pedestrians and

No. Pedestrians are not counted as traffic and hence don't fall under the
same regulations.

> hence it was incongruous that they were legally allowed cross against
> the lights.

The traffic regulations don't apply to them (except for one or two
where they are explicitly mentioned).

> It is quite a simple argument to understand. You might want to dispute
> it but I would have hoped that you could follow it.

I understood it. I just disagreed with it.

Phil.

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

 

[Phil Launchbury]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick wrote:
>
> In reality cyclists are a bit like pedestrians and a bit like cars. If
> they are tootling along a 3 or 4 miles an hour on the pavement they are
> similar to a pedestrian.

No. Cyclists are (or were) forbidden to ride on the pavement since the
pavement is for foot traffic only. (In law cycles are defined as
carriages and hence required to be on the highway, not the pavement).
And in fact is specifically prohibited and punishable by a
fixed-penalty fine.

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

 

[Mark T]

Phil Launchbury writtificated

>> In reality cyclists are a bit like pedestrians and a bit like cars. If
>> they are tootling along a 3 or 4 miles an hour on the pavement they are
>> similar to a pedestrian.
>
> No. [goes off on a tangent]

You've missed his point:

At 3-5mph a cyclist will be part of the pedestrian 'flow', at higher speeds
a cyclist will not be a part of that flow.

The increasing provision of shared use paths, with low design speeds, kinda
supports this.