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



T

Tony Raven

Guest
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, 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.

>
>
> It's about 50% here in Cambridge I estimate. And a bit less for cyclists.


My estimate would be 2-3 cars cross on the red before one stops making
it 50-75% of cars. I would say for the first car to arrive at a red its
virtually 100% on a busy road.

Tony
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Hansen <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:32:33 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
>you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-


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


Some people are insane. And IME lots of them drive mid-range BMWs.

>I have seen this happen too.
>
>Even the threat of their own death does not deter some motorists.
>Overtaking a queue of vehicles waiting at a level crossing and
>driving onto the crossing is common enough not to be remarkable. It
>is impossible to miss the alternately flashing red lights on a level
>crossing, the only explanation is that the motorist considers their
>journey more important that anything else. Perhaps they should have
>number plates made up that read "SOD U". Perhaps they believe the
>propaganda of car manufacturers about "safety features" of cars.


The Renault Megane was once advertised as "the safest car in it's
class". One was tempted to Photoshop one of those ads to show a
disintegrating car wrapped round the front of a Class 37 locomotive at
speed and add to the caption "but not in this class". :)

--
- 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

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "Just zis
Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:36:49 +0100, Pyromancer
><[email protected]> wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>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.

>
>Example: main road to industrial estate, traffic light which exists to
>control a side turning into a power station service road, very lightly
>trafficked. By default the light is red for traffic heading from the
>estate into town, and the green phase can be as short as ten seconds.
>It is galling to approach this light, be able to clearly see that
>there is no other traffic on either of the roads controlled, and still
>have to stop. It is even more galling to be behind the third car in
>the queue and find the light red when you reach the line. And worst
>of all is to be detected by the first induction loop, have the lights
>go green in front of you, and go red again before you reach the line
>because they have assumed that all traffic will be travelling at 30mph
>or more.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, other than
idiotic setup of the traffic lights, in which case they need fixing. It
certainly doesn't justify anyone going through them on red, and if this
is a significant problem then they need both fixing, and a camera.

>Large numbers of motorists fail to stop at that light, and they don't
>have to work hard to get their speed back. Most cyclists do stop.


Good for the cyclists, though it sounds as if there should perhaps be a
plunger for cyclists to press to start the sequence, rather than using
the induction loops.

>The council's view is that cyclists should be on the pavement at this
>point. They are evidently convinced that crossing the main road twice
>at busy roundabouts and picking your way along a narrow pavement
>overhung with trees is safer than riding along the road...


Council are wrong and need to be re-educated. But bad cycle facilities
are not a justification for red-light jumping.

--
- 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

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Hansen <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>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?


Yes, though (as with cyclists), only to deliberate law-breakers who go
through long after the light has changed. ISTR a policeman on TV years
ago explaining that red-light cameras were set not to fire for the first
few seconds of the red so as not to be too hard on people who made a
genuine miscalculation, but instead to target deliberate and determined
law-breaking. The article included a video shot by a CCTV camera at a
crossroads where the lights for one route went to red, a car crossed
just as they went red and that wasn't a big problem, but then about 30
seconds later (which is a significant time in traffic-light terms) some
nutter in a van merrily drove through the red at 35mph and rammed a car
crossing legally on the green on the other road. Seemingly that had
been used in court and the van driver got a fairly hefty penalty, and
the video was being used to explain the then new concept of
traffic-light cameras.

IME every traffic light should have a camera, a red signal is a danger
signal and should *always* mean stop.

NP: Lupine - Molly Lee.
--
- 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.
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

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


Earlier this year I stopped at a light-controlled crossing. A truck didn't.
The woman crossing the road with a child in a push-chair was, it seemed to
me, quite lucky that the truck missed her.

Obviously the truck had been stolen by a cyclist.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
They came for Dani Behr
I said "She's over there, behind the wardrobe"
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:50:39 +0100, Pyromancer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, though (as with cyclists), only to deliberate law-breakers who go
>through long after the light has changed. ISTR a policeman on TV years
>ago explaining that red-light cameras were set not to fire for the first
>few seconds of the red so as not to be too hard on people who made a
>genuine miscalculation, but instead to target deliberate and determined
>law-breaking.


You are supposed to regard an amber light as a stop signal, but as
usual drivers have consumed the safety margin as a performance
benefit, frequently accelerating through on amber, and then ask for
additional margin on top.

Just like speed cameras. If you make even a half-serious attempt
drive to the speed limit you are unlikely to trigger any camera, since
they are set to 10% + 3mph, and most speedos over-read anyway; instead
people drive to the ACPO prosecution guidelines and whine about being
caught for "a few mph over" when actually they are a few mph over the
guidelines, which are already 20% over the limit for a 30 zone.

When I was learning to drive I was told the meanings of the traffic
light colours could be considered as follows:

Red: Stop
Amber: Stop
Red-Amber: Stop
Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.

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
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:50:25 +0100, Pyromancer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, other than
>idiotic setup of the traffic lights, in which case they need fixing.


It is just that: an example of idiotic setup of lights, which will not
be fixed because the council think cyclists should be on the pavement.

>Council are wrong and need to be re-educated. But bad cycle facilities
>are not a justification for red-light jumping.


No excuse, no, but you can see why it happens. Just as you can see
why people ride on the pavement. But we should aim to fix the
problem, not the symptom.

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
 
N

Nick

Guest
This is all a bit silly. the issue isn't whether cars jump red lights (some
do, some don't). Nor whether cars are more dangerous than bikes - of course
they are. The issue is whether cyclists should obey the law.

The OP was making the reasonable point that perceived law-breaking by
cyclists coudl lead to a backlash against this eminently sensible mode of
transport.

I'm a cyclist. I think we should obery the law. If we think there are
reasons why a given law should be inapplicable to bikes, we should make the
case explicitly.

Nick


"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ningi wrote:
> >
> > Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that
> > bikes do in London, so perhaps it does.
> >

>
> Only because the first driver who stops for the red light blocks all
> those behind him, who would if they could, from jumping the light. Even
> then and with very few traffic lights equipped with cameras, ~10,000
> motorists a months are being caught in London by red light cameras.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm
>
>
> Tony
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
Nick wrote:

> The OP was making the reasonable point that perceived law-breaking by
> cyclists coudl lead to a backlash against this eminently sensible
> mode of transport.


I have news. It already did. [Cont. The D++ly M++l]

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
They came for Dani Behr
I said "She's over there, behind the wardrobe"
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined the following...
> Red: Stop
> Amber: Stop
> Red-Amber: Stop
> Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.


I like that. Might become a T-Shirt at some point! ;-)

Jon
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Nick
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>This is all a bit silly. the issue isn't whether cars jump red lights (some
>do, some don't). Nor whether cars are more dangerous than bikes - of course
>they are. The issue is whether cyclists should obey the law.
>
>The OP was making the reasonable point that perceived law-breaking by
>cyclists coudl lead to a backlash against this eminently sensible mode of
>transport.
>
>I'm a cyclist. I think we should obery the law. If we think there are
>reasons why a given law should be inapplicable to bikes, we should make the
>case explicitly.


<fx: Bows>

Well said that cyclist!

NP: Within Temptation - Mother Earth.
--
- 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.
 
A

Al C-F

Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:12:47 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined the following...
>> Red: Stop
>> Amber: Stop
>> Red-Amber: Stop
>> Green: Stop, unless it is safe to proceed.

>
>I like that. Might become a T-Shirt at some point! ;-)
>
>Jon


I once heard the Italian variant of this.

Green - foot to the floor
Amber - keep your foot down
Red - room for one more, keep your foot down
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
>
> I once heard the Italian variant of this.
>
> Green - foot to the floor
> Amber - keep your foot down
> Red - room for one more, keep your foot down


And the spoof Fiat advert with picture of a total wreck:-

Designed by computers
Built by robots
Driven by Italians

T
 
M

Matt Ashby

Guest
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> It doesn't need all the paraphernalia you suggest of license plates on
> bikes. First I am not sure where I could find to put one on mine and
> second its been an abject failure with cars. What it needs is police or
> wardens on the ground with a zero tolerance approach. However we all
> know how likely that is to happen.


But when the police do stop a cyclist for either of these matters
(riding on the pavement or failing to stop at a red traffic light)
-- which in the case of those cyclists who really don't want to
stop is easier said than done -- they quite often get a torrent
of abuse along the lines of "why don't you go and catch some
real criminals?". This sometimes comes from passing motorists
or pedestrians as well as the cyclist.

(Of course, if you've just gone through a red traffic light, you
*are* a "real criminal" because you have just committed a real
crime.)


Matt Ashby

www.mattashby.com
 
M

Matt Ashby

Guest
[email protected] (Silas Denyer) wrote:

> I have never, ever, seen a cyclist stopped for running a red light or
> riding on a pavement.


Conversely, I've seen cyclists stopped for both of these offences in
the past week, and for both the week before that. Just because you
haven't *seen* it happen doesn't mean it *doesn't* happen.


Matt Ashby

www.mattashby.com
 
D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
> -- which in the case of those cyclists who really don't want to
>stop is easier said than done -- they quite often get a torrent
>of abuse along the lines of "why don't you go and catch some
>real criminals?".


You mean just how speeding motorists who get done moan about how the police
should be going after real criminals instead of law-abiding motorists???

Fancy that!

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On 19 Oct 2004 05:45:31 -0700, [email protected] (Matt Ashby)
wrote:

>But when the police do stop a cyclist for either of these matters
>(riding on the pavement or failing to stop at a red traffic light)
> -- which in the case of those cyclists who really don't want to
>stop is easier said than done -- they quite often get a torrent
>of abuse along the lines of "why don't you go and catch some
>real criminals?"


It's OK, they are already quite used to that from when they hand out
speeding tickets ;-)

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
 
J

JohnB

Guest
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> > -- which in the case of those cyclists who really don't want to
> >stop is easier said than done -- they quite often get a torrent
> >of abuse along the lines of "why don't you go and catch some
> >real criminals?".

>
> You mean just how speeding motorists who get done moan about how the police
> should be going after real criminals instead of law-abiding motorists???


The roads are full with non tax paying uninsured cyclists without bells.
Lock 'em all up.

John B
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
JohnB wrote:
> The roads are full with non tax paying uninsured cyclists without
> bells. Lock 'em all up.


You are the editor of the "D++ly M++l" and ICMFP :)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
JohnB wrote:
> The roads are full with non tax paying uninsured cyclists without
> bells. Lock 'em all up.


You are the editor of the "D++ly M++l" and ICMFP :)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)