Re: Oops, bloody cyclists ...



P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Trevor A Panther said the following on 08/03/2008 10:05:

> And dare I say it
> there are a huge amount of traffic light jumpers -- it seems to be
> becoming the standard thing to do -- never mind going through on amber
> I have watched several vehicles at a time driving fast through reds. I
> live about 100 metres from a busy crossroads and see it every time I
> stand and watch. The "chance it brigade"!


This is becoming a huge problem, yet the media seem to focus purely on
cyclists who RLJ. Obviously POBS and cyclists who do that are wrong,
but generally they aren't going to do much damage except to themselves.
Someone driving a ton or more of metal through red lights,usually in
excess of the speed limit, is more than likely to hurt or kill someone
else. Also, having had the misfortune to need to drive in Bristol again
recently, it seems that a massive factor in the traffic chaos there is
people jumping lights (red or green) when they can't clear the junction
so everything locks up.

I genuinely can't understand why the situation where cars and buses
blatantly jump red lights isn't getting more attention than it is in the
media, or is it because cyclists are just seen as an easy target? Red
light jumping needs to gain the same social stigma as drink-driving (by
*all* road users)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
On 08/03/2008 15:31, Clive George said,

> I'm guessing you don't actually read the press. Columnists frequently
> attack cyclists.


I'm guessing that his intellect matches his moniker.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 08/03/2008 15:31, Clive George said,
>
>> I'm guessing you don't actually read the press. Columnists frequently
>> attack cyclists.

>
> I'm guessing that his intellect matches his moniker.


Personally I reckon he's a Guardian reader - they tend to have fewer such
articles.
 
Trevor A Panther <[email protected]> wrote:

> PLONK


It's *always* the plonkers who yell this.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
 
Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:

> Also, having had the misfortune to need to drive in Bristol again
> recently, it seems that a massive factor in the traffic chaos there is
> people jumping lights (red or green) when they can't clear the junction
> so everything locks up.


This is the daily lot of us here in Paris. The French mentality seems
to be that you go through on the green onto the junction even if you
can't clear it (junction boxses exist here but are systematically
ignored by =~ 98% of drivers). Of course, when they get stuck, the
people coming from 90° do the same, and so when they light changes back
to red, the perpendicular set goes back to green, and they get off the
junction. In the meantime, however, the people who were prevented from
clearing _their_ green light, go through on the red, reasoning (I
presume) that if was 'their turn' anyway. They naturally enough get
caught in the middle of the junction, and the whole thing starts again.

I've seen people get nicked for going through on the red in situations
such as above, and even when shown video evidence that they went through
on the red, have vehemently denied it, even on occasion becoming
verbally or physically abusive towards plod.

> I genuinely can't understand why the situation where cars and buses
> blatantly jump red lights isn't getting more attention than it is in the
> media, or is it because cyclists are just seen as an easy target? Red
> light jumping needs to gain the same social stigma as drink-driving (by
> *all* road users)


Cyclists don't pay road tax.

HTH.

D.
--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
French motorcycling vocabulary -->
http://coughlan.fr/vocab_french-english_2007.pdf
 
In article <1idhgpd.1d425rjk1jc1qN%[email protected]>, des
[email protected] says...

> Cyclists don't pay road tax.
>

There's no specific road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty isn't set aside to
pay for roads, it goes into the chancellor's big pot with all the other
taxes raised from people including cyclists and pedestrians and
equestrians.
 
"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <1idhgpd.1d425rjk1jc1qN%[email protected]>, des
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Cyclists don't pay road tax.
>>

> There's no specific road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty isn't set aside to
> pay for roads, it goes into the chancellor's big pot with all the other
> taxes raised from people including cyclists and pedestrians and
> equestrians.


You'll get food poisoning from that bait...
 
In article <[email protected]>, Clive George
[email protected] says...
> "Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <1idhgpd.1d425rjk1jc1qN%[email protected]>, des
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Cyclists don't pay road tax.
> >>

> > There's no specific road tax. Vehicle Excise Duty isn't set aside to
> > pay for roads, it goes into the chancellor's big pot with all the other
> > taxes raised from people including cyclists and pedestrians and
> > equestrians.

>
> You'll get food poisoning from that bait...
>

It's OK, I spat it out.
 
The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> Have a look at his home page....
>
>


Could you please post a link to your home page for comparison.
 
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember [email protected] (The
Older Gentleman) saying something like:

>Have a look at his home page....


I've seen worse.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."
 
On 08/03/2008 17:35, The Older Gentleman said,

> Have a look at his home page....


Amongst all the **** that seems to comprise your signature, the link to
your home page seems to be missing.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 08/03/2008 17:35, The Older Gentleman said,
>
> > Have a look at his home page....

>
> Amongst all the **** that seems to comprise your signature, the link to
> your home page seems to be missing.


And?


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
 
"Señor Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>> Have a look at his home page....

>
> Could you please post a link to your home page for comparison.


So you have to have a home page to know another one is bad?


--
Dan White
([email protected])
Perform an exorcism when replying.
 
Dan White wrote:
> "Señor Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Have a look at his home page....

>> Could you please post a link to your home page for comparison.

>
> So you have to have a home page to know another one is bad?
>
>


What's so 'bad' about it ?
 
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2008 17:35, The Older Gentleman said,
>>
>>> Have a look at his home page....

>> Amongst all the **** that seems to comprise your signature, the link to
>> your home page seems to be missing.

>
> And?
>
>


And slagging off other people's efforts when you haven't got the wit or
intelligence to produce anything of your own makes you look a bit of a ****.
 
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:30:10 GMT, Señor Chris <[email protected]> is
alleged to have written:

>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/03/2008 17:35, The Older Gentleman said,
>>>
>>>> Have a look at his home page....
>>> Amongst all the **** that seems to comprise your signature, the link to
>>> your home page seems to be missing.

>>
>> And?
>>

>And slagging off other people's efforts when you haven't got the wit or
>intelligence to produce anything of your own makes you look a bit of a ****.


Is there a law stating that you must have a personal home page? Not
having one does not equate to the lack of ability to produce one. Nor
is it necessary to tell the world if you do have one, after all there
are some particularly unsavoury characters out there.


--
Darren
GSF1200N K3
 
DR wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:30:10 GMT, Señor Chris <[email protected]> is
> alleged to have written:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2008 17:35, The Older Gentleman said,
>>>>
>>>>> Have a look at his home page....
>>>> Amongst all the **** that seems to comprise your signature, the link to
>>>> your home page seems to be missing.
>>> And?
>>>

>> And slagging off other people's efforts when you haven't got the wit or
>> intelligence to produce anything of your own makes you look a bit of a ****.

>
> Is there a law stating that you must have a personal home page? Not
> having one does not equate to the lack of ability to produce one. Nor
> is it necessary to tell the world if you do have one, after all there
> are some particularly unsavoury characters out there.
>


Exactly. People who are willing to put personal information on the web
in order to provide useful information to others should be
congratulated, not put down with inane criticism.