Institutionalised law-breaking using bikes - anarchy is near at hand



N

Ningi

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ningi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
>> week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights.
>> If the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car
>> arriving at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the
>> case. I can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red,
>> whereas I find it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who
>> stopped for one.
>>

>
> That would accord with my experience with cars. Lights go red, three
> cars carry on, fourth car stops, rest have to stop behind it. With
> cyclists and the same percentage you would see 10 cyclists approach, 3
> cross on red, fourth stops, next three cycle past stopped cyclist to
> cross on red etc. So with a 75% disobedience rate for both you would
> see three out of all the cars approaching the red light carry on but 75%
> of all cyclists.
>


Well, I've just had a rather nice Italian meal with plenty of
Montepulciano, so I'll take this further :)

You're making the assumption that the cars behind the one that stopped
would all have preferred to run the red light. I don't think this is
supportable. It's just as plausible that the 4th car decided not to run
the light because it was no longer safe, and the subsequent vehicles
would have made the same decision.

Always tough trying to guess what people are thinking.

As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
are significantly different behaviours.

Pete
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On 17/10/04 12:00 am, in article [email protected],
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:32:23 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
> Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> good old fashioned common sense?

>
> "Common sense" is very common. However, that does not mean it is
> sensible.
>
>> Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response
>> too

>
> I note that your loud words do not amount to a reasoned criticism of
> Guy's page. Had you a better response I suspect that you would have
> made it.
>


I have a lot of sympathy for the perceptions of the pedestrians, after all I
am one at various times. It is , however, often the case that perceptions
are misleading.

We know that in the lawless capital of the land down south that many more
pedestrians are injured by motor vehicles on the footway than by cycles. By
a few orders of magnitude.

Cyclists on the pavement or jumping red lights through streams of traffic
are irritating because they invade ones personal space and, much like
finding an insect where one wouldn't wish to, are annoying and in some cases
upsetting. They are however rarely harmful.

I suppose the reason they (the lawless proportion of cyclists) are prepared
to behave in such a manner is because they have been left with little
personal space of their own on the road, either by deliberate ceding of it
in order to make rapid progress through the traffic., or by having it taken
by motor vehicles cutting them up or buzzing past just a hairs breadth away.

The roads would be safer for all if cyclists used them more. And if a
presumption of guilt was placed upon motor vehicle operators for accidents.
(it would probably lead to reduced motor insurance premiums).

However, having said that, the OP has gone off the rails a bit, ranting on
about doing the unfeasible in search of the ineffectual, with the end result
the opposite of their original intent.

...d
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
[email protected], "Ningi"
<[email protected]> wrote:



> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
> are significantly different behaviours.


Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
slow down and cross if safe[1].

...d

[1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around
 
N

ningi

Guest
David Martin wrote:
> On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
> [email protected], "Ningi"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
>>light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
>>of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
>>are significantly different behaviours.

>
>
> Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
> slow down and cross if safe[1].


I regularly don'r see much slowing down taking place. It is equally
common for cyclists to continue through the light at the pace they
arrived at.

Pete

>
> ..d
>
> [1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around
>
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On 17/10/04 12:28 am, in article
[email protected], "ningi"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>> On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
>> [email protected], "Ningi"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
>>> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
>>> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
>>> are significantly different behaviours.

>>
>>
>> Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
>> slow down and cross if safe[1].

>
> I regularly don'r see much slowing down taking place. It is equally
> common for cyclists to continue through the light at the pace they
> arrived at.
>


Well, one would tend to slow down before a hazard rather than in the
hazard.. and with a bike being fairly slow moving anyway, there isn't much
slowing down needing to be done.
...d
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 20:22:49 GMT someone who may be Adrian
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable.

>
>I'm not sure I agree with that inference.


Perhaps you could indicate why.

Is the mass media full of articles condemning these deaths, calling
for the heads of those responsible, quoting Louise Christian and
asking for systems costing millions of pounds per equivalent
fatality to be installed to guard against future deaths?


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Martin <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
>[email protected], "Ningi"
><[email protected]> wrote:


>> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
>> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
>> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
>> are significantly different behaviours.


Agreed completely - and while I applaud and encourage more red light
cameras to catch drivers who try it on, the behaviour of some people on
bikes is utterly inexcusable.

>Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
>slow down and cross if safe[1].
>[1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around


Complete bollocks.

Cyclists who deliberately crash red lights should, IME, have their bikes
confiscated by the authorities and auctioned off, to provide a source
of good but cheap bikes for those of us who do believe in obeying the
law.

Anyone who deliberately rides through a red light in anything other than
a dire emergency is a complete moron and should be put off the road.

And for the record, I'm speaking as a cyclist.

--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.
 
P

Paul - xxx

Guest
David Martin vaguely muttered something like ...
> On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
> [email protected], "Ningi"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
>> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
>> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
>> are significantly different behaviours.

>
> Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
> slow down and cross if safe[1].
>
> ..d
>
> [1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around


Oh come on .. you're now using arguments that many cyclists in this
newsgroup decry car drivers for ...

Just because a manouvre you consider is safe, doesn't mean
a) that it _is_ safe
b) that it is any less illegal.

See, that's the troubl;e with generalisation .. NOT all car drivers run red
lights, NOT all cyclists run red lights.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
 
Z

Zog The Undeniable

Guest
Ian Walker wrote:

> Is anybody else's Troll-o-Meter twitching, or is it just me?
>

The billy goat gruff meter is off the scale.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Ningi wrote:
>
>
> Well, I've just had a rather nice Italian meal with plenty of
> Montepulciano, so I'll take this further :)
>
> You're making the assumption that the cars behind the one that stopped
> would all have preferred to run the red light. I don't think this is
> supportable. It's just as plausible that the 4th car decided not to run
> the light because it was no longer safe, and the subsequent vehicles
> would have made the same decision.
>


No, just pointing out that to get the sampling statistics right on cars
you need to count how many go through before the first one stops. Three
through and the indication is 75% ignoring the light, 4 through and its
80%. Its no use saying 10 cars approached the lights, three went
through and seven stopped so its only 30% because six had no choice
about the matter.


> Always tough trying to guess what people are thinking.
>
> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
> are significantly different behaviours.
>


Or significantly different opportunities


Tony
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:36:49 +0100 someone who may be Pyromancer
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Cyclists who deliberately crash red lights should, IME, have their bikes
>confiscated by the authorities and auctioned off, to provide a source
>of good but cheap bikes for those of us who do believe in obeying the
>law.


Do you believe the same should happen to law breaking motorists?

If not, why not?


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Tony Raven said:
> Solar Penguin wrote:
> >
> > If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of

them.
> > Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my

enemies
> > had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had

the
> > chance to harm me.
> >

>
> Amazing. You'd rather use it commit suicide than kill the only thing
> that really threatens you.


If I've gone there specifically for the purpose of killing *ALL* feline
creatures, and would rather die than leave even one alive, then yes of
course I would. What's the alternative? Live the rest of my life, with
the guilt and shame of knowing that I'd allowed a feline to contaminate
the world with its existence?

And in real life, I want to see *ALL* private, non-pedestrian road-users
suffering as much as possible as often as possible. I don't want even
one to escape. Cyclists aren't pedestrians. Therefore, they're the
enemy too. And as such, I want to see them suffer too.

> You're right this "debate" is not worth having.


I'm realising that no debate with non-pedestrian scum is worth having.
Sorry, guys. Time to killfile this thread. Byeee...
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Jon Senior" said:
>
> Quitter! You could take your chances shooting the lion and stroke the
> cat.


But I then would still have to live with the guilt and shame of my
failure, knowing that I'd allowed even one piece of feline scum to
escape.

Anyway, I'm gonna killfile this thread now. There's just no reasoning
with idiots like you. No doubt you'll call that quitting too.
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Just zis Guy, you know? said:
>
> Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk
> of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving


No. The point I've been repeatedly making is that it *ISN'T* more
important to control one than the other. It isn't an "Either/Or"
situation. it's about making sure that *ALL* private ,
non-pedestrian-users suffer, no matter what they just happen to be
driving. This whole "Either bike or car" issues that everyone keeps
bringing up is just a smoke screen to hide the real question of "Either
pedestrians or everyone else".

Still, since you're not interested in debating the real issue, you'll be
glad to hear that I'm gonna killfile this whole thread rather than waste
more time talking to anti-pedestrian twats like you.
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On 17/10/04 7:43 am, in article [email protected], "Paul - ***"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Martin vaguely muttered something like ...
>> On 17/10/04 12:12 am, in article
>> [email protected], "Ningi"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> As a general point though.. Cars running red lights tend to do it as the
>>> light is changing to red. Many cyclists will run a red light regardless
>>> of the colour when they actually arrive at the signal. I think these
>>> are significantly different behaviours.

>>
>> Absolutely. Cars will speed up to charge across a red light. Cyclists will
>> slow down and cross if safe[1].
>>
>> ..d
>>
>> [1] safe does not imply pleasant for those around

>
> Oh come on .. you're now using arguments that many cyclists in this
> newsgroup decry car drivers for ...
>
> Just because a manouvre you consider is safe, doesn't mean
> a) that it _is_ safe

Like crossing on green as well?

> b) that it is any less illegal.


Precisely.

>
> See, that's the troubl;e with generalisation .. NOT all car drivers run red
> lights, NOT all cyclists run red lights.


I was pointing out that there is a difference in the way motorists and
cyclists jump red lights. I didn't and don't condone doing so.

...d
 
P

Paul - xxx

Guest
David Martin vaguely muttered something like ...
> On 17/10/04 7:43 am, in article [email protected], "Paul -
> ***" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Oh come on .. you're now using arguments that many cyclists in this
>> newsgroup decry car drivers for ...
>>
>> Just because a manouvre you consider is safe, doesn't mean
>> a) that it _is_ safe

> Like crossing on green as well?


We weren't discussing how safe or not crossing on green is .. and no, just
'cos a traffics green doesn't necessarily mean I consider it's safe to
cross, atever the vehicle. Do you think it does ?

>> b) that it is any less illegal.

>
> Precisely.
>
>>
>> See, that's the troubl;e with generalisation .. NOT all car drivers run
>> red lights, NOT all cyclists run red lights.

>
> I was pointing out that there is a difference in the way motorists and
> cyclists jump red lights.


Jumping a red light is jumping a red light, and how one does it is
immaterial, especially in law.

Isn't this the same argument put forward by many cyclists on this newsgroup
when car drivers speed? Both sets of road users believe THEY are safe, but
can cause havoc for other road users that they cannot or donot see.

I've seen a cyclist get run over crossing on red when they also 'thought' it
was safe to do so .. didn't make the rider of the motorbike that hit him
(which was crosing on a green light) feel any better. SMIDSY works many
ways ...

> I didn't and don't condone doing so.


Your post gives that impression.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
>
> But I then would still have to live with the guilt and shame of my
> failure, knowing that I'd allowed even one piece of feline scum to
> escape.
>
> Anyway, I'm gonna killfile this thread now. There's just no reasoning
> with idiots like you. No doubt you'll call that quitting too.
>


Don't forget to shoot yourself on the way out.

Tony
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:23:51 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Still, since you're not interested in debating the real issue, you'll be
>glad to hear that I'm gonna killfile this whole thread rather than waste
>more time talking to anti-pedestrian twats like you.


Not an accurate description of Guy.


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:16:44 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>And in real life, I want to see *ALL* private, non-pedestrian road-users
>suffering as much as possible as often as possible. I don't want even
>one to escape. Cyclists aren't pedestrians. Therefore, they're the
>enemy too. And as such, I want to see them suffer too.


Really.

>I'm realising that no debate with non-pedestrian scum is worth having.


Ditto.


--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:12:53 GMT, Ningi
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>You're making the assumption that the cars behind the one that stopped
>would all have preferred to run the red light. I don't think this is
>supportable.


No, he's making the assumption that a proportion of those using both
types of vehicle are prepared to run the light, but that the first car
to stop prevents any further car drivers from doing so, whereas the
first cyclist to stop places no such constraint on other cyclists. It
is a fair point.

I have been stationary at a traffic light (on my bike) and had a BMW
drive round me and through the red light.

It is also worth pointing out that motorists only seem law-abiding by
comparison if you exclude the types of offences they are most likely
to commit. For some reason those motorists who attack cyclists for
running red lights often become very defensive if the word "speeding"
is mentioned :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University