Re: Cyclist terrorist

[Mortimer]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B 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>.
>
> An interesting and thought provoking piece. Thanks.

It seems to work surprisingly well, though as a driver, cyclist and
pedestrian (no, not all at the same time!) they idea scares me to death: I
much prefer to know that there are times when I have absolute priority over
other road users - and then must pay for that "privilege" by having times
when other road users have absolute priority over me.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

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


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> cupra wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:

> >> I was considering this last week as I traversed Somerset and got
> >> stuck on a road with double white lines behind a cyclist who was
> >> travelling at about 20mph. I wondered how many other drivers could
> >> proceed patiently behind the wheezing lump, taking care not to
> >> intimidate, waiting for a suitable and legal overtaking opportunity.
> >>
> >> Certainly not the line of mothers wanting to get to the school in the
> >> next town who were in the queue behind me. Chummy on a bike didn't
> >> seem to have much clue either as he signalled me to pass him several
> >> times, ignoring the double white lines as he did so.
> >
> > That's one thing I hate - horse riders do it to, gesticulating wildly
> > when I don't overtake until *I* can see it's clear and safe to do
> > so....
>
> It's also a shame that so many people don't bothe to check up on the
> circumstances under which they're allowed to cross white lines.
>
> Highway Code rule 129
> Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST
> NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining
> premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the
> road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
> horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16
> km/h) or less.

Indeed. It wouldn't have helped to overtake the cycle however.

Luke


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

 

[Brimstone]

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?

Why not simply switch off the lights and, when the experiment is shown to
work, remove them?

Ooops sorry, I forgot, it'll put people out of work.

 

[Mortimer]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i5o93t.4ax99bz4ronhN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Mortimer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But my observations are perhaps not typical,
>
> I think that the police action in Oxford shows your experience is
> typical.

One interesting to come out of the second day that the police clamped down
on cyclists in Oxford was that they were enforcing a restriction that I've
never seen anywhere else, and didn't know existed in Oxford.

Queen Street is a road that is open as a one-way street for buses. But it is
*not* open for cyclists. When I first saw the TV reports, I thought they
were fining cyclists for going the wrong way, which would have been
perfectly sensible, but they were even fining those going in the correct
direction. Normally the restriction on that sort of road is buses, taxis and
cyclists (but not cars or lorries).

Odd that they seemed to be concentrating on this road in preference to
Cornmarket which is totally pedestrianised and therefore it is no surprise
that cyclists (as well as buses, cars etc) are banned there. It's hard
enough walking (with or without a bike) along that road because of the
sheep-like pedestrians who walk across the road in front of you without
looking where they are going. The thought of even attempting to cycle along
there doesn't bear thinking about.

A couple of years ago I personally witnessed a cyclist ride straight through
the middle of a zebra crossing (I think it was on/near St Giles') which had
a lot of people on it - they looked as if they were part of a party of
tourists. I saw them from a long way off and slowed down to stop, but
another cyclist shouted "out of my f-ing way", swerved round me and carried
on at full tilt, scattering pedestrians left and right.

I wonder if he'd still have done that if bikes, like cars, were traceable by
number plate. There would have been enough witnesses to prosecute him - it
wouldn't just have been "my word against yours".

 

[Steve Firth]

Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a
> stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance
> vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Umm hmm, and the cyclist I referred to was exceeding 10mph.

 

[Steve Firth]

Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

> There was recently a collision on (IIRC) the M25 where some amoeba drove at
> unabated speed straight into the back of a stationary Highways Agency
> Traffic Officer's vehicle, whilst they were mopping up a previous incident.
> He "didn't see" a big 4x4 with flashing roof lights and dayglo chevrons all
> over the back. In broad daylight.

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.

 

[Steve Firth]

Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> 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?

It would be worth piloting the use of capital punishment for light
jumpers. However I have no doubt that we would run out of cyclists far
faster than we would run out of motorists.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Brimstone <[email protected]> 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?
>
> Why not simply switch off the lights and, when the experiment is shown to
> work, remove them?

I suspect that in many areas there is a need for some sort of lighting
control. For instance, buses tend to be unable to pull out onto the main
road round here because of how freely the traffic moves.

A flashing amber light would remind drivers that they /do not/ have
priority.
>
> Ooops sorry, I forgot, it'll put people out of work.

Would it? How?

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Mortimer <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Matt B 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>.
> >
> > An interesting and thought provoking piece. Thanks.
>
> It seems to work surprisingly well, though as a driver, cyclist and
> pedestrian (no, not all at the same time!) they idea scares me to death: I
> much prefer to know that there are times when I have absolute priority over
> other road users

You never have absolute priority. Indeed, you may recall that green
lights mean you may proceed 'if it is safe to do so'. If someone is
still crossing the road, you do not have priority.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> 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?
>
> It would be worth piloting the use of capital punishment for light
> jumpers. However I have no doubt that we would run out of cyclists far
> faster than we would run out of motorists.

You know perfectly well that we would run out of neither.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[JNugent]

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).

 

[JNugent]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>There was recently a collision on (IIRC) the M25 where some amoeba drove at
>>unabated speed straight into the back of a stationary Highways Agency
>>Traffic Officer's vehicle, whilst they were mopping up a previous incident.
>>He "didn't see" a big 4x4 with flashing roof lights and dayglo chevrons all
>>over the back. In broad daylight.
>
>
> 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.

 

[Brimstone]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Mortimer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Matt B 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>.
>>>
>>> An interesting and thought provoking piece. Thanks.
>>
>> It seems to work surprisingly well, though as a driver, cyclist and
>> pedestrian (no, not all at the same time!) they idea scares me to
>> death: I much prefer to know that there are times when I have
>> absolute priority over other road users
>
> You never have absolute priority. Indeed, you may recall that green
> lights mean you may proceed 'if it is safe to do so'. If someone is
> still crossing the road, you do not have priority.
>

Mortimer also demonstrates why the idea works. Everyone is scared of getting
hurt so they all take more care.

 

[Brimstone]

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?

 

[Adrian]

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...

 

[Adrian]

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?

 

[Brimstone]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Brimstone <[email protected]> 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?
>>
>> Why not simply switch off the lights and, when the experiment is
>> shown to work, remove them?
>
> I suspect that in many areas there is a need for some sort of lighting
> control. For instance, buses tend to be unable to pull out onto the
> main road round here because of how freely the traffic moves.
>
> A flashing amber light would remind drivers that they /do not/ have
> priority.
>>
>> Ooops sorry, I forgot, it'll put people out of work.
>
> Would it? How?

If there were no traffic signs or signals there would be no need for traffic
engineers/road planners, sign designers and makers, traffic signal makers
and maintainers, civil servants draughting laws and more civil
servants/police officers enforcing those laws.

The idea gets better by the minute.

The only job creation scheme in the short term would be for people to remove
all the redundant signs and signals.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Mortimer <[email protected]> wrote:

> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 8 Oct, 14:47, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> spindrift ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> >> they were saying :
> >>
> >> > A survey by the RAC found that, yes, a lot of cyclists run red lights.
> >> > It also found that one in ten drivers in Manchester and London crossed
> >> > traffic lights more than three seconds after the lights turned red,
> >>
> >> I don't believe that number. It certainly isn't my personal experience,
> >> unless they're including the idiots who enter congested junctions they
> >> can't clear until after the lights have changed.
> >
> > "I don't believe that number."
> >
> > Interesting you make a claim , refuse to back it up.
> >
> > I make a claim, back it up, you say you don't believe the evidence!
> >
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> >
> > Jumping red lights is becoming a frighteningly common occurrence -
> > with the latest figures showing that traffic cameras in London are
> > catching almost 10,000 drivers every month.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm
>
> Based on my own observations, I too am surprised at the figures. However I
> don't dispute that they are correct.
>
> Maybe RLJ by car/lorry/bus drivers is more of a problem in larger towns and
> cities. In Oxfordshire (Oxford city centre, Abingdon, Didcot) I've very
> rarely seen car drivers go through red lights. In contrast, almost every day
> I see cyclists go through junction and pedestrian lights which are at red.
> And that's at *any* time during the red phase, rather than just "chancing
> it" by going through just after the lights have gone red or just before they
> turn green - it's as if cyclists think "red lights only apply to cars; I'm a
> cyclist so I can do what the hell I like". Similarly for zebra crossings.
>
you get a bit of that around kingston way but also cars thar chance it,
it is very much pot/kettle, some of the ped crossings you have to be
careful, of a idiot chancing the lights and steaming around the courner.

> But my observations are perhaps not typical, as I don't have cause to drive
> in heavily congested towns where RLJ may be more common by cars.
>
it certianly is true that areas have diffenant driving.

> I'm one of the minority of cyclists (based on my observations) who never go
> through red lights and occupied zebra crossings, nor do I overtake on the
> left, especially approaching a junction where other vehicles may be turning
> left. I cycle to the same standard and obeying the same set of rules as I do
> when I'm driving - as if I were accountable and traceable in the same way,
> even though bikes don't have number plates. I'd be quite happy to comply
> with any legislation requiring my bike to have number plates front and back,
> and to have at least third-party insurance for damage that my actions may
> cause, providing the insurance premium was in proportion to the risk of my
> causing damage.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Mortimer <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Matt B 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>.
> >
> > An interesting and thought provoking piece. Thanks.
>
> It seems to work surprisingly well, though as a driver, cyclist and
> pedestrian (no, not all at the same time!) they idea scares me to death: I
> much prefer to know that there are times when I have absolute priority over
> other road users - and then must pay for that "privilege" by having times
> when other road users have absolute priority over me.

if the roads are narrow enought so that might is right isn't enought
then free for alls tend to work.


if you compare richmound to kingston. richmound has narrow streets which
peds will cross with out feeling they are playing chicken etc, while
kingstons one way system with big wide roads is any thing but ped or
bike friendly, mind you it's not terribly car friendly either.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com