Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey



Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 17:27, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 18 May, 16:33, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:51, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the samespeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. Butspeeddoesn't kill, of
>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light atspeed,
>>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
>>>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
>>>>>>> Which law are they breaking?
>>>>>> Does it make any difference?
>>>>> Yes it does.
>>>>>> I will ask you as well.
>>>>> I thought that you were already.
>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
>>>>> Do you agree with motorists breaking the law?
>>>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
>>>> Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
>>>> question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.
>>> CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
>>> again.
>> What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
>> responses above aimed at?
>>
>> Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
>> for three-part harmony now.
>>
>>>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
>>>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
>>>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
>>>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
>>>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
>>>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
>>>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
>>> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
>>> what cyclists do?
>> Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
>>
>> I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
>> pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
>> PT user.
>
> Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.
>
>> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
>> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
>
> Have I said that I do?

Try answering the question

--
Tony the Dragon
 
On 18 May, 19:07, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 16:33, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 19:51, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
> >>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the samespeed.
> >>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
> >>>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. Butspeeddoesn't kill, of
> >>>>> course.
> >>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light atspeed,
> >>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
> >>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
> >>> Which law are they breaking?
> >> Does it make any difference?
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> >> I will ask you as well.
>
> > I thought that you were already.
>
> >> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
>
> > Do you agree with motorists breaking the law?
>
> >> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
> >> answer.
>
> > Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
>
> OK thanks for the thick answers, now tell me
> Why does it makes a difference?
> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?
> And to answer your question, no I do not agree with anybody breaking the
> law (including motorists) see its quite easy.

Even Graf von Stauffenberg?
 
On 18 May, 20:17, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
> [email protected]>,Squashmesays...
>
> > Does speed kill?
>
> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year old
> car.
> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration testing
> at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting that evening.
>
> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
> series of Top Gear.
>
> So I guess that's answered that question.
>
> --

Nobody dies, until they do.
 
On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
> >>>>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
> >>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
> >>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>>>> Does speed kill?
> >>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
> >>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
> >>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
> >>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
> >>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
> >>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
> >>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
> >>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
> >>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
> >>>> Meanz Heinz".
> >>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
> >>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
> >>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> >>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> >>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> >>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> >>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
> >> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
> >> be able to understand what you read.
> >> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
>
> > He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
> > elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
> > speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
> > could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
> > annoying cyclist got in her way.
>
> > I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
>
> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.
>


Ehhhh????
 
On 18 May, 20:26, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 17:27, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> On 18 May, 16:33, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:51, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the samespeed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. Butspeeddoesn't kill, of
> >>>>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light atspeed,
> >>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
> >>>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
> >>>>>>> Which law are they breaking?
> >>>>>> Does it make any difference?
> >>>>> Yes it does.
> >>>>>> I will ask you as well.
> >>>>> I thought that you were already.
> >>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
> >>>>> Do you agree with motorists breaking the law?
> >>>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
> >>>>>> answer.
> >>>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
> >>>> Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
> >>>> question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.
> >>> CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
> >>> again.
> >> What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
> >> responses above aimed at?
>
> >> Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
> >> for three-part harmony now.
>
> >>>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
> >>>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
> >>>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
> >>>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
> >>>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
> >>>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
> >>>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
> >>> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
> >>> what cyclists do?
> >> Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
>
> >> I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
> >> pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
> >> PT user.
>
> > Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.
>
> >> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
> >> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
>
> > Have I said that I do?
>
> Try answering the question
>

God, you're a tough interrogator.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
 
Tony Dragon wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you
>>
>> Why do you insist on shattering people's illusions?
>>
>> (Wanders off into the subset lamenting the fact that all the
>> Guinness he's drunk won't improve his health, that there isn't a
>> sandy beach under an impossibly blue sky with fair maidens cavorting
>> in the surf wearing skimpy bikinis in every Bounty packet, that he
>> can't get there by British Rail and that Norman Vaughan won't be
>> stopping by with a box of chocolates.)
> You mean that helicopter hovering over the motorway isn't delivering
> Black Magic?
> And as for the Flake advert!

If we are to believe Mr Nugent, then sadly not.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:09, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red
>>>>>>>>>>>> light, obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a
>>>>>>>>>>>> collision?
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read.
>>>>>>>>>>> How many times did that happen in the aforementioned three
>>>>>>>>>>> hours at Piccadilly Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles
>>>>>>>>>> passing the red light, or was the report limited to the fact
>>>>>>>>>> of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much
>>>>>>>>> greater than that from a bicycle even when they are going at
>>>>>>>>> the same speed. Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and
>>>>>>>>> the car is only 1,000kg. You can see the implication can't
>>>>>>>>> you? Cyclists 43 cars 270. --
>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any
>>>>>>>> misconceptions? Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break
>>>>>>>> the law by going through red lights?
>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own
>>>>>>> safety without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going
>>>>>>> through red lights?
>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light,
>>>>>> except when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g.
>>>>>> instructed by a police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be
>>>>>> to carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't
>>>>> kill, of course.
>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at
>>>>> speed, hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21
>>>>> months.
>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a
>>>>> clean driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in
>>>>> the 30mph limit and failed to stop at the red light on the
>>>>> junction with Gliddon Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told
>>>>> Isleworth Crown Court. "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to
>>>>> notice the lights were red and collided with cyclist Charlotte
>>>>> Morse, who was riding her bicycle from north to south across the
>>>>> junction with the lights at green in her favour," he said."
>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>
>>> Does speed kill?
>>
>> Not in isolation, no!
>>
>
> Quite so. It takes two to tango. One safespeeder, and one target to
> get annoyingly in the way.

Why two? Have you never heard of a single vehicle collisions?
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:17, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
>> [email protected]>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> Does speed kill?
>>
>> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year old
>> car.
>> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration testing
>> at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting that evening.
>>
>> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
>> series of Top Gear.
>>
>> So I guess that's answered that question.
>>
>> --
>
> Nobody dies, until they do.

So the answer to your earlier question ("Does speed kill?") is "No", isn't
it?
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 18:42, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> I'm merely wondering what windmill it is that you are tilting at.
>>
>>> Sory about ending the sentence with a preposition.
>>
>> (Tut, tut.)
>
> It is his only fault.

Just like people who ignore red traffic lights then?

> Be gentle.

That would depend on the severity and frequency of the offence.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 19:07, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 16:33, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 19:51, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the samespeed.
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. Butspeeddoesn't kill, of
>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light atspeed,
>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
>>>>> Which law are they breaking?
>>>> Does it make any difference?
>>> Yes it does.
>>>> I will ask you as well.
>>> I thought that you were already.
>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
>>> Do you agree with motorists breaking the law?
>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
>>>> answer.
>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
>> OK thanks for the thick answers, now tell me
>> Why does it makes a difference?
>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?
>> And to answer your question, no I do not agree with anybody breaking the
>> law (including motorists) see its quite easy.
>
> Even Graf von Stauffenberg?
>
>
>
Go back to Troldhaugen

--
Tony the Dragon
 
On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.roadpeace.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
> >>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
> >>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> >>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
> >>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
> >>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
> >>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
> >>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
> >>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
> >>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
> >>>>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
> >>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
> >>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> >>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> >>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> >>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
> >>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> >>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> >>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> >>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
> >>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>>>> Does speed kill?
> >>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
> >>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
> >>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
> >>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
> >>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
> >>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
> >>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
> >>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
> >>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
> >>>> Meanz Heinz".
> >>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> >>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
> >>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
> >>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> >>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> >>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> >>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> >>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
> >> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
> >> be able to understand what you read.
> >> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
>
> > He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
> > elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
> > speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
> > could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
> > annoying cyclist got in her way.
>
> > I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
>
> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.

What I think you are saying is that it would be OK to break the law by
speeding, because it might be safer in some unknown way. So you agree
with motorists breaking the law.
 
On 18 May, 20:18, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <fa507d32-90af-4a47-9390-b3a2fc053cb1
> @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> > driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> > safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> > If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> > cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>
> Eating a banana doesn't kill until someone has an allergic reaction to
> it and dies from asphyxia. Are you saying we should ban bananas?
>

Yes, I'm with you on that one. If those bananas are killing and
injuring hundreds of people per year, then you should start a
campaign. Or have you just been annoyed by one overtaking you at speed
very closely, or even threatening to rear-end you?
 
On 18 May, 20:44, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 20:17, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
> >> [email protected]>,Squashmesays...
>
> >>> Does speed kill?
>
> >> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year old
> >> car.
> >> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration testing
> >> at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting that evening.
>
> >> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
> >> series of Top Gear.
>
> >> So I guess that's answered that question.
>
> >> --
>
> > Nobody dies, until they do.
>
> So the answer to your earlier question ("Does speed kill?") is "No", isn't
> it?

Ummm, certainly would be, if you would have accepted that speed does
kill, if Richard Hammond had died. Like Donald Campbell did.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
>>>>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
>>>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>>>> Does speed kill?
>>>>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
>>>>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
>>>>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
>>>>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
>>>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
>>>>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
>>>>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
>>>>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
>>>>>> Meanz Heinz".
>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
>>>>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
>>>>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
>>>>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
>>>>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
>>>>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
>>>>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>>>> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
>>>> be able to understand what you read.
>>>> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
>>> He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
>>> elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
>>> speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
>>> could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
>>> annoying cyclist got in her way.
>>> I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
>> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
>> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.
>
> What I think you are saying is that it would be OK to break the law by
> speeding, because it might be safer in some unknown way. So you agree
> with motorists breaking the law.

Yes of course that is exactly what I said, you only have to read my
posts to agree with you.

--
Tony the Dragon
Whits fur ye'll no gin by ye
 
Squashme wrote:

> On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

[ ... ]

[someone else asked:]
>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
>>>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
>>>>>> answer.

>>>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.

>>>> Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
>>>> question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.

>>> CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
>>> again.

>> What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
>> responses above aimed at?

>> Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
>> for three-part harmony now.

>>>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
>>>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
>>>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
>>>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
>>>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
>>>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
>>>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.

>>> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
>>> what cyclists do?

>> Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
>> I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
>> pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
>> PT user.

> Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.

Don't be so stupid (not to say offensive).

>> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
>> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?

> Have I said that I do?

You could have simply answered the question when put or on any of the
occasions when it has been repeated.
 
On 18 May, 23:35, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> [someone else asked:]
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
> >>>>>> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
> >>>>>> answer.
> >>>>> Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
> >>>> Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
> >>>> question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.
> >>> CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
> >>> again.
> >> What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
> >> responses above aimed at?
> >> Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
> >> for three-part harmony now.
> >>>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
> >>>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
> >>>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
> >>>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
> >>>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
> >>>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
> >>>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
> >>> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
> >>> what cyclists do?
> >> Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
> >> I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
> >> pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
> >> PT user.
> > Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.
>
> Don't be so stupid (not to say offensive).

Poor you. Not much of an argument, is it? I'm stupid and I've offended
you. Well, forgive me, I obviously am too stupid to know what I do.

> >> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
> >> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
> > Have I said that I do?
>
> You could have simply answered the question when put or on any of the
> occasions when it has been repeated.

That was an answer. It may not be the one that you want. Tough.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 20:18, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 18 May, 19:37, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 18 May, 17:35, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 18 May, 17:19, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 19:52, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be avictimlesscrime when a cyclist jumps a red light,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructs the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circus, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any mention of the consequences of those vehicles passing the red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoadPeace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.roadpeace.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For road crash victims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends what you mean by OK. If it is done to ensure their own safety
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> red lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
>>>>>>>>>>>> when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
>>>>>>>>>>>> police officer, where the lights are not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>> "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
>>>>>>>>>>> hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
>>>>>>>>>>> driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
>>>>>>>>>>> limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
>>>>>>>>>>> Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>>>>>>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
>>>>>>>>>>> collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
>>>>>>>>>>> north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
>>>>>>>>>>> favour," he said."
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m...
>>>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>>>> Does speed kill?
>>>>>>>> No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
>>>>>>> Number 39 on standard response list.
>>>>>> Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
>>>>>> are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
>>>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
>>>>>> I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
>>>>>> Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
>>>>>> tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
>>>>>> Meanz Heinz".
>>>>>>>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
>>>>>>> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
>>>>>> I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe
>>>>> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
>>>>> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
>>>>> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
>>>>> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
>>>>> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>>>> You do seem to have the ability either not to be able to read, or not to
>>>> be able to understand what you read.
>>>> He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
>>> He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
>>> elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
>>> speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
>>> could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
>>> annoying cyclist got in her way.
>>> I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
>> He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
>> it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.

> Ehhhh????

I'll try to make it easier for you to understand...

In answer to your totally incorrect statement "You defend her speed"
(referring to the motorist who drove through a red light at 45 in a 30
limit), I answered: "I don't. Her speed was illegal".

Now which bit of that is too difficult for you to understand?

I *could* (and perhaps should) have added that I did not defend her
driving through a red light (at whatever speed), but of course, my
answer was to your "point" which was solely about speed.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
>>>> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you
>>> Why do you insist on shattering people's illusions?
>>>
>>> (Wanders off into the subset lamenting the fact that all the
>>> Guinness he's drunk won't improve his health, that there isn't a
>>> sandy beach under an impossibly blue sky with fair maidens cavorting
>>> in the surf wearing skimpy bikinis in every Bounty packet, that he
>>> can't get there by British Rail and that Norman Vaughan won't be
>>> stopping by with a box of chocolates.)
>> You mean that helicopter hovering over the motorway isn't delivering
>> Black Magic?
>> And as for the Flake advert!
>
> If we are to believe Mr Nugent, then sadly not.

"Speed kills" is simply an advertising slogan.

I can understand why Squashme thinks in terms of advertising slogans,
but most of the rest of us can think for ourselves.
 
In article <f3d952e1-293a-4ebe-9c44-b84d01a68329
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> On 18 May, 20:18, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <fa507d32-90af-4a47-9390-b3a2fc053cb1
> > @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
> >
> > > So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> > > driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> > > safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> > > If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> > > cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
> >
> > Eating a banana doesn't kill until someone has an allergic reaction to
> > it and dies from asphyxia. Are you saying we should ban bananas?
> >
>
> Yes, I'm with you on that one. If those bananas are killing and
> injuring hundreds of people per year, then you should start a
> campaign. Or have you just been annoyed by one overtaking you at speed
> very closely, or even threatening to rear-end you?
>
Now that would be silly seeing as bananas are inanimate objects.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
 
In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...

> "A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
> gone bugger-up?
>
Car collides with tree or other non vehicle object. Single vehicle
collision.

Do you not know what the definition of collision is?

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
0
Views
446
UK and Europe
Phil Armstrong
P
D
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
2
Views
470
UK and Europe
_
?
C
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
0
Views
394
UK and Europe
Conor
C
I
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
1
Views
462
UK and Europe
Brimstone
B
H
Jumping red lights 'not dangerous'... as long as you are in a car and doing almost 50 Mph in a 30 z
Replies
45
Views
1K
UK and Europe
[email protected]
D
Z
Jumping red lights (again)
Replies
4
Views
439
UK and Europe
Andy Morris
A
N
Red Lights & Emergency Vehicles
Replies
22
Views
743
UK and Europe
Nat
N
M
Really freakin frustrating, Red lights
Replies
12
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
idan ouzan
idan ouzan
B
I Run Red Lights
Replies
18
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Zebee Johnstone
Z
beauyboy
Illegal Actions Red Lights
Replies
35
Views
6K
Australia and New Zealand
tumbleweed77
tumbleweed77
Top Bottom Back