Re: Cyclist terrorist

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>> Would it be worth piloting the use of flashing amber traffic lights
>>>> in place of red lights?
>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't cause enough artificial delay (which is one of the big,
>>> if unspoken, aims of modern traffic engineering policy).
>
>> Who benefits (apart from the petroleum companies) from artificially
>> induced delay?
>
> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to introduce
> the Kengestion Charge?

There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before that
idea came about.

Care to try again?

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>> Even worse, the case on the A20, (I think it was the A20, may have
>>> been the M20) where three vans in convoy ploughed into the back of a
>>> crash cushion used to protect workers at road works.
>>>
>>> A crash cushion is the long flatbed truck equipped with sacrificial
>>> bumpers to absorb the impact of a collision. It has a vertical board
>>> at the rear with absolutely sodding enormous and bright lights which
>>> form the shape of an arrow diverting traffic to the appropriate side
>>> of the truck.
>>>
>>> I didn't know they gave driving licences to the blind.
>
>> It was the M20.
>>
>> They crashed serially, presumably in formation.
>
> It was deliberate.
> It must've been deliberate.
> They HAD to have done it deliberately.
>
> PLEASE tell me it was deliberate...

It was deliberate.

(But I might be lieing.)

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>
>>>Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mortimer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe RLJ by car/lorry/bus drivers is more of a problem in larger
>>>>>towns and cities.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look at this interesting video for an alternative view of the
>>>>actual value of traffic lights:
>>>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YV3Cru7aE>.
>>>
>>>
>>>Would it be worth piloting the use of flashing amber traffic lights
>>>in place of red lights?
>>>
>>>Luke
>>
>>No.
>>
>>It wouldn't cause enough artificial delay (which is one of the big,
>>if unspoken, aims of modern traffic engineering policy).
>
>
> Who benefits (apart from the petroleum companies) from artificially induced
> delay?

Good question.

We've got plenty of it, though. That online video about traffic lights
(which I think you described as "thought-provoking") was good evidence
of it. In London today, it is possible to encounter traffic light
junctions where the red is shown for nearly three minutes and the
green for eight seconds, every three minutes. There is no conceivable
traffic-engineering justification for that. We never had lights like
that ten years ago (or so). It is done deliberately in order to delay
(law-abiding) traffic.

 

[Adrian]

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't cause enough artificial delay (which is one of the big,
>>>> if unspoken, aims of modern traffic engineering policy).

>>> Who benefits (apart from the petroleum companies) from artificially
>>> induced delay?

>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to introduce
>> the Kengestion Charge?

> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before
> that idea came about.

Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around the
timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...

 

[Brimstone]

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe RLJ by car/lorry/bus drivers is more of a problem in larger
>>>>>> towns and cities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at this interesting video for an alternative view of
>>>>> the actual value of traffic lights:
>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YV3Cru7aE>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it be worth piloting the use of flashing amber traffic lights
>>>> in place of red lights?
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't cause enough artificial delay (which is one of the big,
>>> if unspoken, aims of modern traffic engineering policy).
>>
>>
>> Who benefits (apart from the petroleum companies) from artificially
>> induced delay?
>
> Good question.
>
> We've got plenty of it, though. That online video about traffic lights
> (which I think you described as "thought-provoking") was good evidence
> of it.

I disagree. There are always occasions when traffic gets stopped at lights
and nothing moves along the conflicting route/s. The film was carefully
edited to show what they wanted it to show. Standard procedure by the media
and by you.

> In London today, it is possible to encounter traffic light
> junctions where the red is shown for nearly three minutes and the
> green for eight seconds, every three minutes.

So all traffic is stopped for an overlapping two minutes fifty-two seconds
(ish)? If so how come as one set of lights goes to red the conflicting route
chamges to red?

> There is no conceivable
> traffic-engineering justification for that.

If it were true (or even realistic) I would agree.

> We never had lights like
> that ten years ago (or so).

I don't believe they exist now.

> It is done deliberately in order to delay
> (law-abiding) traffic.

With what objective in mind?

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wouldn't cause enough artificial delay (which is one of the
>>>>> big, if unspoken, aims of modern traffic engineering policy).
>
>>>> Who benefits (apart from the petroleum companies) from artificially
>>>> induced delay?
>
>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>
>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before
>> that idea came about.
>
> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...

So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of conspiracy
rather than cockup?

What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?

 

[Adrian]

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?

>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>> before that idea came about.

>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>> roadworks...

> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
> conspiracy rather than cockup?

Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.

> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?

It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like the
Kengestion Charge.

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>
>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>> before that idea came about.
>
>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
>>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>> roadworks...
>
>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
>
> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
>
>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
>
> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
> the Kengestion Charge.

There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before that
idea came about.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:42:11 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mortimer wrote:
>>
>> Maybe RLJ by car/lorry/bus drivers is more of a problem in larger towns and
>> cities.
>
>Take a look at this interesting video for an alternative view of the
>actual value of traffic lights:
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YV3Cru7aE>.

Interesting; thanks.

As a small-scale comparison, the left-pondian junctions with 4-Way Stop
signs compares badly with the European system of Give Way signs. A
rolling stop is not necessarily more dangerous, and keeps the traffic
moving & pollution down, but it will attract a ticket from a US police
officer. Why their mayoral candidates don't run on a campaign of
replacing Stop signs with Yield signs is beyond me. It should be a vote
winner.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Adrian wrote:
> > Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> > much like they were saying :
> >
> >>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
> >>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
> >
> >>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
> >>>> before that idea came about.
> >
> >>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
> >>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
> >>> roadworks...
> >
> >> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
> >> conspiracy rather than cockup?
> >
> > Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
> >
> >> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
> >
> > It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
> > the Kengestion Charge.
>
> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before that
> idea came about.

Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around the
timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...

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

 

[Brimstone]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>> much like they were saying :
>>>
>>>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>>>
>>>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>>>> before that idea came about.
>>>
>>>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving
>>>>> around the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>>>> roadworks...
>>>
>>>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
>>>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
>>>
>>> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
>>>
>>>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
>>>
>>> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
>>> the Kengestion Charge.
>>
>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>> before that idea came about.
>
> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...
>

So if you and Adrian are so certain you'll have some substantive independent
evidence to support the allegation?

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:05:22 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>You need, Tom, to understand that, no matter how many examples you give
>of car accidents, pavement cyclists can be a menace. They do law-abiding
>cyclists no favours, they do pedestrians no favours and your good
>fortune in never having been hit by a cyclist does no more to
>demonstrate the safety of pavement cycling than my good fortune in never
>having been hit by a motorist. [1]

Duelling anecdotes are never a good way to make a point (even if it is
the stock in trade for some tabloids). But population-scale studies do
illustrate the relative menaces of cars vs cycles, no?

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Adrian wrote:
> > Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> > much like they were saying :
> >
> >>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
> >>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
> >
> >>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
> >>>> before that idea came about.
> >
> >>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
> >>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
> >>> roadworks...
> >
> >> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
> >> conspiracy rather than cockup?
> >
> > Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
> >
> >> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
> >
> > It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
> > the Kengestion Charge.
>
> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades) before that
> idea came about.

Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around the
timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...

;-)

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Adrian wrote:
> >>> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> >>> much like they were saying :
> >>>
> >>>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
> >>>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
> >>>
> >>>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
> >>>>>> before that idea came about.
> >>>
> >>>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving
> >>>>> around the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
> >>>>> roadworks...
> >>>
> >>>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
> >>>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
> >>>
> >>>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
> >>>
> >>> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
> >>> the Kengestion Charge.
> >>
> >> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
> >> before that idea came about.
> >
> > Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
> > the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...
> >
>
> So if you and Adrian are so certain you'll have some substantive independent
> evidence to support the allegation?

Sorry, I was taking the **** at what was clearly becoming a circular
thread, not least because of Adrian's failure to produce evidence [1]. I
do not actually believe that which I repeated.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] But then, this is Usenet. If we had to produce evidence it would be
awfully quiet around here.
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Matt B]

Brimstone wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>>> much like they were saying :
>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>>>>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>>>>> before that idea came about.
>>>>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving
>>>>>> around the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>>>>> roadworks...
>>>>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
>>>>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
>>>> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
>>>>
>>>>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
>>>> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme like
>>>> the Kengestion Charge.
>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>> before that idea came about.
>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling roadworks...
>>
>
> So if you and Adrian are so certain you'll have some substantive independent
> evidence to support the allegation?

Here's a starting place:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2r9gnk>
=
<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-435668-details/Traffic+light+changes+causing+chaos/article.do>

--
Matt B

 

[Brimstone]

Matt B wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>>>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>>>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>>>>>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>>>>>> before that idea came about.
>>>>>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving
>>>>>>> around the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>>>>>> roadworks...
>>>>>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
>>>>>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
>>>>> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
>>>>> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme
>>>>> like the Kengestion Charge.
>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>> before that idea came about.
>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
>>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>> roadworks...
>>
>> So if you and Adrian are so certain you'll have some substantive
>> independent evidence to support the allegation?
>
> Here's a starting place:
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2r9gnk>
> =
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...raffic+light+changes+causing+chaos/article.do

I see so this supposed delay is actually shifting the timing of the lights
to the benefit of pedestrians?

That is wrong because?

 

[Brimstone]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>>>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've already forgotten how they provided justification to
>>>>>>>>> introduce the Kengestion Charge?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>>>>>> before that idea came about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving
>>>>>>> around the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>>>>>> roadworks...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're suggesting that this alleged delay is a triumph of
>>>>>> conspiracy rather than cockup?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. In fact, I'll state it rather than suggest it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be the point of causing delay for no reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> It allows you to justify the introduction of a signature scheme
>>>>> like the Kengestion Charge.
>>>>
>>>> There was already delay in London long (as in several decades)
>>>> before that idea came about.
>>>
>>> Indeed there was. But it was artificially increased by moving around
>>> the timings for lights, and deliberately badly scheduling
>>> roadworks...
>>>
>>
>> So if you and Adrian are so certain you'll have some substantive
>> independent evidence to support the allegation?
>
> Sorry, I was taking the **** at what was clearly becoming a circular
> thread, not least because of Adrian's failure to produce evidence
> [1]. I do not actually believe that which I repeated.

You're obviously new here, no one blieves what they post.

> [1] But then, this is Usenet. If we had to produce evidence it would
> be awfully quiet around here.

Most likely. Either that or all the naysayers might actually become better -
no delete "better" - informed.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 8 Oct, 08:32, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> "the attitudes displayed by Chapman, Hansen , that ****** Spindrift
> et
> al are exactly that car drivers are the cyclists enemy and that
> cyclists have carte blanche to do whatever they like"
>
> £5 to a charity of your choice if you can back these claims up with
> examples from me - that ****** spindrift.
>
> £5 per example.

List all your Cycling Plus and PH sign-on names then

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Oct, 23:59, "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Oct, 21:21, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed
>
> >> In this case.
>
> >> A 47-year-old woman cycling on the same stretch of road died in Kingston
> >> Bagpuize yesterday :-((
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7032491.stm
>
> >> --
> >> Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
> >> Edgware.
>
> > Killed by someone driving a Renault at rather less than 170 mph. The
> > Porsche driver killed no-one.
> > Your point is?
>
> Just beyond your grasp I fear.
>
> Remedial classes beckon.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


OK smartarse - your chance to star- you explain

 

[cupra]

Brimstone wrote:
> cupra wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> cupra wrote:
<snip>>>>> or less.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but think about why the white lines are there....
>>>
>>> Which is why the exceptions are there.
>>
>> Won't cut the ice with a Judge I'm afraid...
>>
>> To quote my earlier post: "I don't overtake until *I* can see it's
>> clear and safe to do so...."
>
> Quite so, but a lot of people still won't overtake a bike or horse if
> it means crossing the white line even when it's clear.

The majority will though, but leave scant room for the rider(s).