[OT] Road Rage

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rob Morley <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So it's fine for pedestrians to step into the road without looking, and
if they get squashed it's someone else's responsibility?

With a green man - sure. It might be imprudent, though.

Hey, that's what I said. :-)

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

David Martin said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...

Quoted message said:

There is no reason to disbelieve the account of the lad who had been
hit by a cyclist running the red, who had stepped out assuming
(correctly) that the green man indicated that the the lights were red
against the traffic.

But that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for checking that
nothing's coming before stepping off the pavement, any more than a
motorist can drive through a green light with his eyes shut.

At what age? My son was knocked down by a RLJ when crossing the road
on a green man (and while supervised by my wife). He was 2 at the
time.

Something tells me that, as far as Rob is concerned, it's your wife's
fault. I trust all is fine with your son.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

David Damerell said:

Quoting Danny Colyer <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In the bit about WNBR I noticed a tandem stopped at the side of the
road, apparently with a puncture. David Damerell?

I don't know, I don't watch TV, but if it's a brown tandem in Trafalgar
Square with a short girl in a Tilley hat (and nothing else, obviously),
that's us.

Dunno where it was, just that it was leaning against a railing at the
side of the road. There was nobody on it, but there was a bloke
investigating something at the back wheel. I didn't see the other
rider. The bike looked black, but could easily have been brown.

I'm pretty sure I deleted it from my PVR after watching it, so I can't
go back and look for more detail.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Budstaff said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...

Quoted message said:

There is no reason to disbelieve the account of the lad who had been hit
by
a cyclist running the red, who had stepped out assuming (correctly) that
the
green man indicated that the the lights were red against the traffic.

But that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for checking that
nothing's coming before stepping off the pavement, any more than a
motorist can drive through a green light with his eyes shut.

How would he know it was green if his eyes were shut?

And how would a blind pedestrian (listening out for the bleeps of a
pelicon crossing) know that a cyclist was not only approaching but
wasn't prepared to stop?

Rob Morley said:

In article <1iaesig.1mo998g19746tuN%
[email hidden]>, Ekul Namsob
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

It may be of benefit to him to look but it is certainly not his
responsibility.

So it's fine for pedestrians to step into the road without looking, and
if they get squashed it's someone else's responsibility?

Some pedestrians *cannot* look.

In article <1iagvtz.15egvl31hvtzu7N%
[email hidden]>, Ekul Namsob
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <1iaesig.1mo998g19746tuN%
[email hidden]>, Ekul Namsob
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

It may be of benefit to him to look but it is certainly not his
responsibility.

So it's fine for pedestrians to step into the road without looking, and
if they get squashed it's someone else's responsibility?

Thanks for trimming the bit about the green light for pedestrians on the
pelican crossing, it says a lot about how seriously I should take your
responses to this thread.

A light is just a light, not some sort of force field. Maybe I'm more
serious about personal responsibility than some people.

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <1iagvtz.15egvl31hvtzu7N%
[email hidden]>, Ekul Namsob
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <1iaesig.1mo998g19746tuN%
[email hidden]>, Ekul Namsob
[email hidden] says...

> It may be of benefit to him to look but it is certainly not his
> responsibility.
>
So it's fine for pedestrians to step into the road without looking, and
if they get squashed it's someone else's responsibility?

Thanks for trimming the bit about the green light for pedestrians on the
pelican crossing, it says a lot about how seriously I should take your
responses to this thread.

A light is just a light, not some sort of force field. Maybe I'm more
serious about personal responsibility than some people.

But why are you more serious about the personal responsibility of a young
child to be sophisticated and cynical enough not to trust others to follow
rules that he's only recently been taught himself than about the personal
responsibility of the cyclist to stop at the light? And don't forget that
cyclists (and all other vehicle users) have a general 'personal
responsibility' not to mow down peds on ped crossings even when there are
_no_ lights. (Highway Code 195 'you MUST give way when a pedestrian has
moved onto a crossing'.)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339

In article <[email hidden]>, Budstaff
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

But why are you more serious about the personal responsibility of a young
child to be sophisticated and cynical enough not to trust others to follow
rules that he's only recently been taught himself than about the personal
responsibility of the cyclist to stop at the light?

I'm not denying that the cyclist has responsibility not to squash
people.

(Ekul Namsob) said:

David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At what age? My son was knocked down by a RLJ when crossing the road
on a green man (and while supervised by my wife). He was 2 at the
time.

Something tells me that, as far as Rob is concerned, it's your wife's
fault. I trust all is fine with your son.

Cheers,
Luke

numbskull you're confused - fault is not the same as responsibility

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I was aghast at the cyclists running the red lights.

If they can do it - and generally survive the experience unscathed, can
we not conclude that it is pointless and inefficient to wait at red, and
that waiting gives no obvious benefit to anybody?

Quoted message said:

But is this an experience that is survived "unscathed"? Don't know
what the statistics are, though the programme suggested that injury/
death rates amongst female cyclists were higher than male cyclists as
they were more cautious.

If it suggested that, it's wrong. Males have higher casualty rates
overall. Females seem to be more likely to be killed by lorries at
traffic lights than males, and it is hypothesised that this is because
they are more likely to wait beside them rather than getting to the
front (and possibly then jumping the light).

The other stat I remember from somewhere is that more cyclists are
killed and injured by motor vehicles jumping red lights than by
jumping red lights themselves.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie said:

The other stat I remember from somewhere is that more cyclists are
killed and injured by motor vehicles jumping red lights than by
jumping red lights themselves.

Colin McKenzie

I was trying to find this the other day ... anyone got a source ???