Good News!

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> [email protected] wrote:

>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> I said they do not pass red traffic lights *routinely* (though many cyclists do, of course).

>>> And you were talking complete bollocks, of course.

>> If you really think that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights, take a look at
>> any main road junction for an hour or two.

> Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the course
> of my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?

> Anyway, I'm giving up trying to get this basic point through your thick skull, I have better
> things to do than try to cure your delusions.

I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression that
motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.

Because if you really believe that to be true, you are certainly either deluded or trolling.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
>
> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.
>

Ah the delusion known as reality

> Because if you really believe that to be true, you are certainly either deluded or trolling.
>
....or going around with your eyes open.

Tony

"Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. " Philip K. ****

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. "

Unlike Nugent....

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
>> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.

> Ah the delusion known as reality

So you say that drivers pass straight through red traffic lights routinely?

And since you also presumably think that they also pass routinely through green traffic lights, you
must also be under the impression that every traffic light junction is more or less permanantly
blocked by wreckage which is constantly being added to?

>> Because if you really believe that to be true, you are certainly either deluded or trolling.

> ....or going around with your eyes open.

Oh yes... how could we fail to see the constant and ever-expanding carnage at traffic lights, since
(according to you and AB) no-one ever stops at them?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
>
> So you say that drivers pass straight through red traffic lights routinely?
>

Yes

> And since you also presumably think that they also pass routinely through green traffic lights,
> you must also be under the impression that every traffic light junction is more or less
> permanantly blocked by wreckage which is constantly being added to?
>

No. I didn't say they routinely passed through throughout the red phase, but certainly in the first
few seconds of the red phase.

>
> Oh yes... how could we fail to see the constant and ever-expanding carnage at traffic lights,
> since (according to you and AB) no-one ever stops at them?
>

Routinely passing red lights does not mean they never stop at them. At most busy junctions I would
estimate at least one or two cross the line after the light has changed to red on each cycle.
Usually, but not always, it is within the first 5 seconds of the light going red and fortunately
because of the red& amber period and getting started phase of the transverse direction, direct
conflict does not occur. However people crossing well after the light is red is sufficiently common
that when driving or cycling, if I am at the front, I _always_ check to make sure that traffic has
stopped the other way before proceeding For 25,000 a year to be prosecuted for ignoring a red light
it can't be that rare.

Tony

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I'm glad I'm at a different PC which has no killfile yet, so I had the opportunity to see this
example of blithering stupidity.

> So you say that drivers pass straight through red traffic lights
routinely?
> And since you also presumably think that they also pass routinely through green traffic lights,
> you must also be under the impression that every traffic light junction is more or less
> permanantly blocked by wreckage
which
> is constantly being added to?

Oops! By your argument the population of cyclists must therefore be almost zero by now, given the
number who you assert go through red lights. Or perhaps both road user types choose to jump the
lights in a way which they think brings them little risk - car drivers by anticipating green and
stretching amber and cyclists by proceeding with caution. Both road user types seem to include a
small subset whose judgement is sufficiently defective as to end up with death and destruction - in
the cyclists' case usually their own.

And now you can go back in the trollbox.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> So you say that drivers pass straight through red traffic lights routinely?

> Yes

>> And since you also presumably think that they also pass routinely through green traffic lights,
>> you must also be under the impression that every traffic light junction is more or less
>> permanantly blocked by wreckage which is constantly being added to?

> No. I didn't say they routinely passed through throughout the red phase, but certainly in the
> first few seconds of the red phase.

Why do you apply that limitation of meaning now?

Either drivers routinely go through red traffic lights (like London cyclists) or they don't.

>> Oh yes... how could we fail to see the constant and ever-expanding carnage at traffic lights,
>> since (according to you and AB) no-one ever stops at them?

> Routinely passing red lights does not mean they never stop at them.

I would say that it must mean *exactly* that.

And the reason the topic came up is that for many (if not most) cyclists in Central London, red
traffic lights (whether at junctions or at pelicon crossings) appear to have no meaning whatsoever,
no matter what "phase" of the red you are talking of. IOW, cyclists in Central London *routinely*
pass traffic lights at red.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the course
> > of my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?
>
> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.

Of course they do. I see something between two and five vehicles go through red at one of teh
junctions I negotiate every day. Sometimes they're still going through the red after the lights in
my direction have done their whole amber phase and are now at green.

Since at those lights at that time there is _always_ a queue waiting at the lights, and the lights
are on a double 90 degree bend that cannot be negotiated at speed, (road runs parallel to tight
against railway embankment, swaps to other side of embankment through a narrow bridge with zero
skew, with lights governming entry under the bridge, so it's true 90 degree left turn under the
bridge, and immediate 90 degree right turn the width of the embankment further on) all these drivers
were approaching reasonably slowly (if they didn't, they would embed themselves in one of the
several brick walls involved), so there is no possibility of the old favourite "not safe to stop"
lie - they just go through.

I see no rational justification for assuming that this only happens at the one cycle of the lights I
observe as I pass some time between
07:30 and 08:30, so the only conclusion is that drivers routinely go through red lights at
that junction.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
>
> >> Because if you really believe that to be true, you are certainly either deluded or trolling.
>
> > ....or going around with your eyes open.
>
> Oh yes... how could we fail to see the constant and ever-expanding carnage at traffic lights,
> since (according to you and AB) no-one ever stops at them?

No, according to him motor vehicles routinely go through red traffic lights. If you can't
distinguish between that observation and the one no-one has made that all motor-vehicles always go
through all red traffic lights, you need a whole lot of help with your language and/or
comprehension skills.

Or were you embarking on straw-man arguments? Again?

The pliers on my desk have blue and yellow handles. This is fact. Do you now believe that all pliers
always have blue and yellow handles? Or is it that you disbelieve that the pliers I can see in front
of me as I type have blue and yellow handles?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
>> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.

>> Because if you really believe that to be true, you are certainly either deluded or trolling.

> Just watch any set of lights on the A10 in North London and at the lights without cameras normally
> you will see one driver go through just after the lights have turned red.

> After all if they never do it, why bother with red light cameras?

No-one claims that no drivers ever go through red lights.

The fact is that drvers do not *routinely* go through red traffic lights.

There is a huge difference between the two, isn't there?

AAMOF, the last-second dash that *some* drivers make on amber is an indication that for them, it is
"go through now on the change or wait", which itself is an indication that the red light (rather
than the cusp between amber and red) actually has meaning for them. That may not be the best
approach (in fact, it obviously isn't), but it can be seen as strengthening - and not weakening -
the argument that drivers do respect red traffic lights (but the more so if they are red when
encountered, of course).

It isn't like that for every class of road-user, is it?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The fact is that drvers do not *routinely* go through red traffic lights.

> Yes they do. They routinely go through my local set of lights on red. A hidden camera would be a
> boon for the tax payer.

Yet another poster who does not understand the word "routine" and its derivatives.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> [email protected] wrote:

>>> Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the course
>>> of my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?

>> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
>> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.

> Of course they do. I see something between two and five vehicles go through red at one of teh
> junctions I negotiate every day. Sometimes they're still going through the red after the lights in
> my direction have done their whole amber phase and are now at green.

> Since at those lights at that time there is _always_ a queue waiting at the lights...

Really?

How can that be possible be if drivers routinely drive through red traffic lights?

Why are they waiting?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> Since I can (and do) see motor-vehicle drivers passing red lights in a few minutes in the
> >>> course of my normal travel, what would be the point of spending hours doing it?
>
> >> I wonder what delusion you must be suffering from in order to be under the mistaken impression
> >> that motor-vehicle drivers routinely pass red traffic lights.
>
> > Of course they do. I see something between two and five vehicles go through red at one of teh
> > junctions I negotiate every day. Sometimes they're still going through the red after the lights
> > in my direction have done their whole amber phase and are now at green.
>
> > Since at those lights at that time there is _always_ a queue waiting at the lights...
>
> Really?
>
> How can that be possible be if drivers routinely drive through red traffic lights?
>
> Why are they waiting?

You're honestly, honestly, genuinely, absolutely claiming that the word "routinely" is synonymous
with "always, and without exception"?

If so, as I previously said, I think your language skills need some attention, but I'm surprised you
make it quite so obvious in a public forum.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[James Annan]

JNugent wrote:

>
> How can that be possible be if drivers routinely drive through red traffic lights?
>
> Why are they waiting?

Because it only takes one car to stop, to block all those behind it. If 75% of car drivers always go
through a red light, then you'll still only get 3 doing it (on average) before you find one who
stops and blocks the rest. Also a driver's willingness to go through a red light almost certainly
depends on how long it has been red for - if all drivers will go though a red that has only just
appeared (say within 3 secs) then again about 3 cars will go through, the 4th will not.

I routinely get overtaken by cars when I stop for red lights (while cycling).

James

 

[Andyp]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote

> > > Of course they do. I see something between two and five vehicles go through red at one of teh
> > > junctions I negotiate every day. Sometimes they're still going through the red after the
> > > lights in my direction have done their whole amber phase and are now at green.

<snip argument>

> You're honestly, honestly, genuinely, absolutely claiming that the word "routinely" is synonymous
> with "always, and without exception"?

I'd say cars going through red lights was occasional to rare depending on location. What would you
say "routine" was? In the example above do you mean 2-5 vehicles pile through on red one after the
other every time the lights change? Or is that for several light cycles from different approaches or
something? If it was anything like that where I ride I wouldn't be on the roads at all.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > > Of course they do. I see something between two and five vehicles go through red at one of
> > > > teh junctions I negotiate every day. Sometimes they're still going through the red after the
> > > > lights in my direction have done their whole amber phase and are now at green.
>
> <snip argument>
>
> > You're honestly, honestly, genuinely, absolutely claiming that the word "routinely" is
> > synonymous with "always, and without exception"?
>
> I'd say cars going through red lights was occasional to rare depending on location. What would
> you say "routine" was? In the example above do you mean 2-5 vehicles pile through on red one
> after the other every time the lights change?

Yes, at the particular approach to teh particular junction I have in mind.

> Or is that for several light cycles from different approaches or something?

No, that's each time the lights go red on that approach, typically something like 2 to 5 cars go
through on teh red. Sometimes cars are still crossing the line when the other ('my') approach has
gone green (but that's fairly rare - I see it maybe once every 6-8 weeks, and generally try and have
a word with the last driver through when I see it (there's more lights about 300 yards down teh
road, so you frequently catch up with teh perpetrators)).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Jnugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> The fact is that drvers do not *routinely* go through red traffic lights.

>>> Yes they do. They routinely go through my local set of lights on red. A hidden camera would be a
>>> boon for the tax payer.

>> Yet another poster who does not understand the word "routine" and its derivatives.

> Perhaps, then, we could have your definition of routinely. Does an average of two cars per change
> between 7am and 7pm suffice?

Only if the total number of vehicles per change happened to be two.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

 

[Petere]

Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:59:28 -0000, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> The fact is that drvers do not *routinely* go through red traffic lights.
>>
>>> Yes they do. They routinely go through my local set of lights on red. A hidden camera would be a
>>> boon for the tax payer.
>>
>> Yet another poster who does not understand the word "routine" and its derivatives.
>
> Perhaps, then, we could have your definition of routinely.
>
> Does an average of two cars per change between 7am and 7pm suffice?

Are you not able to recognise the difference between vehicles passing through the lights on the
amber phase, or very briefly after they have changed to red, and vehicles arriving at the lights
when they are red, the drivers/riders taking a very cursory glance as to whether it is safe to
proceed and then going ahead?

Equally are you unable to recognise the difference between vehicles using a pavement for a few feet
to park, and vehicles driving along a pavement for a significant distance as part of their journey?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

 

[Tony Raven]

Gonzalez wrote:

>
> So you consider *routinely* and *constantly* to be synonyms. Interesting.

Mr Nugent must be totally frustrated not being able to drive his car as it is constantly in the
garage for its routine service.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
>
>> Routinely passing red lights does not mean they never stop at them.
>
> I would say that it must mean *exactly* that.
>

So how often do you have a routine service on your car or a routine meeting with your bank/

> And the reason the topic came up is that for many (if not most) cyclists in Central London, red
> traffic lights (whether at junctions or at pelicon crossings) appear to have no meaning
> whatsoever, no matter what "phase" of the red you are talking of. IOW, cyclists in Central London
> *routinely* pass traffic lights at red.
>

So where it the carnage of flattened cyclists in the middle of these junctions they routinely cross
on red (using your criteria for evidence of such "routine" activity)?

Tony