Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey



JNugent wrote:

>
> There are only two possibilities, aren't there?

maybe a third - she could be one of those that does 45 EVERYWHERE
regardless of speed limits, you know the ones... forty five in a NSL,
head into a forty limit, still forty five, then straight through the
thirty section (still doing a steady forty five) and back out onto the
countryside again, back to NSL and still do... forty five. In which
case, she would be pretty certain of her speed at any time would she not.

T
 
On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > "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?
>

No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
error. Weird that, for a motorist.

But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
objects, but only one vehicle?

I hardly need to add that the pedestrian, being more likely to be hurt
in such an event, bears the greater moral responsibility for allowing
this singular event to happen. And indeed some of these trees, and
walls, are sited in the most dangerous places. I blame our
grandparents.
 
On 18 May, 23:40, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > 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?

So you are saying that motorists who exceed the speed limit are always
wrong and should not do it? Good. That's a start.
 
On 18 May, 17:21, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 May, 19:57, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tony Dragon 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 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...
> >>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
> >> Agree with it?
> >> He doesn't recognise the concept.
> > To self-quote from a couple of years ago on uk.legal:-
> > "As a cyclist, I am getting more and more angered by cyclists ignoring
> > red lights at pedestrian crossings, where the cars have managed to
> > stop
> > in time, and where I am waiting to wheel my bike across the road. Just
> > shouting "Buy a car, you [insert favoured term]" does not satisfy any
> > more. If I decide to walk out on to the crossing, when I have a green
> > man signal in my favour, in front of a speeding cyclist who is
> > obviously intent on not stopping, am I breaking a law? The cyclist is,
> > after all, intentionally intimidating me and others from crossing
> > (threatening behaviour?). And yes, I do realise that both of us may be
> > hurt.
> > Is there a right of self-defence in this situation? "
> > Also happens when I am walking across sans bike, of course.
>
> Haven't you (more recently) defended RLJ-jumping by cyclists at
> junctions? And footway-cycling?

Chapter and verse (and context)?
 
Squashme wrote:
> 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.

Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
incident.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> "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?
>>
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> objects, but only one vehicle?

"Single vehicle collision" is the standard police description of a car
driving into a bridge/tree/ditch.
 
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.
>


....so we are all the architects of our own destinies!

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> "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?
>>
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> objects, but only one vehicle?
>
> I hardly need to add that the pedestrian, being more likely to be hurt
> in such an event, bears the greater moral responsibility for allowing
> this singular event to happen. And indeed some of these trees, and
> walls, are sited in the most dangerous places. I blame our
> grandparents.

Got it! Your real name is Doug!

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Squashme wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
> incident.

it doesn't help though, and all that energy means if something happens
one has less time and more energy to change.

it is a IF though driving at 100mph doesn't mean one will die. nor is
nessarlly that much more of a danger than 60 or what ever the speed
limit is. limits are arbtury and do not cover all situations. so it can
be safe to be a fair amount above the limit, and sometimes the limit is
not a safe speed.

the trouble is that people get used to risks because it hasn't killed
them yet, driving at high speed in the driving rain, running red lights
etc, it doesn't have too feel it to be a very risky operation.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
Tony B wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>
>> There are only two possibilities, aren't there?
>
> maybe a third - she could be one of those that does 45 EVERYWHERE
> regardless of speed limits, you know the ones... forty five in a NSL,
> head into a forty limit, still forty five, then straight through the
> thirty section (still doing a steady forty five) and back out onto the
> countryside again, back to NSL and still do... forty five. In which
> case, she would be pretty certain of her speed at any time would she not.

I never thought of that one... ;-)
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>>
>>> "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?
>>
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared.

What - you have to use Google before you understand the meaning of
simple everyday words?
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 23:40, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> 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?
>
> So you are saying that motorists who exceed the speed limit are always
> wrong and should not do it? Good. That's a start.

Stick in the word "intentionally" and I can agree with it.
 
Squashme wrote:
> On 18 May, 17:21, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 19:57, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tony Dragon 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 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...
>>>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
>>>> Agree with it?
>>>> He doesn't recognise the concept.
>>> To self-quote from a couple of years ago on uk.legal:-
>>> "As a cyclist, I am getting more and more angered by cyclists ignoring
>>> red lights at pedestrian crossings, where the cars have managed to
>>> stop
>>> in time, and where I am waiting to wheel my bike across the road. Just
>>> shouting "Buy a car, you [insert favoured term]" does not satisfy any
>>> more. If I decide to walk out on to the crossing, when I have a green
>>> man signal in my favour, in front of a speeding cyclist who is
>>> obviously intent on not stopping, am I breaking a law? The cyclist is,
>>> after all, intentionally intimidating me and others from crossing
>>> (threatening behaviour?). And yes, I do realise that both of us may be
>>> hurt.
>>> Is there a right of self-defence in this situation? "
>>> Also happens when I am walking across sans bike, of course.
>> Haven't you (more recently) defended RLJ-jumping by cyclists at
>> junctions? And footway-cycling?
>
> Chapter and verse (and context)?

Aren't youn the chap who (fairly recently) attacked the City of London
Police for enforcing the law on traffic lights?
 
Roger Merriman wrote:
> Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause
>> of the incident.
>
> it doesn't help though, and all that energy means if something happens
> one has less time and more energy to change.

But, as you say, something else has to go wrong before any resulting impact
has an effect.

> it is a IF though driving at 100mph doesn't mean one will die. nor is
> nessarlly that much more of a danger than 60 or what ever the speed
> limit is. limits are arbtury and do not cover all situations. so it
> can be safe to be a fair amount above the limit, and sometimes the
> limit is not a safe speed.
>
> the trouble is that people get used to risks because it hasn't killed
> them yet, driving at high speed in the driving rain, running red
> lights etc, it doesn't have too feel it to be a very risky operation.
>
All of which is immaterial unless there is an event that prevents the
planned progress of the vehicle along its path.
 
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
> > incident.
>
> it doesn't help though, and all that energy means if something happens
> one has less time and more energy to change.

Which comes down to making approprate decisions and still does not mean
that "speed kills". AFAICS speed rarely kills, indeed I can't think of a
single instance where speed itself has killed, can you?

I used to share an office with someone who drove a car at 763mph, and he
was very definitely alive. As indeed were the people in another office
where several of them had driven cars at speed over 200mph. At another
place there were others whose commute to work was done at over 1500 mph.
Another place of work had several people who had travelled at 22,369mph
some years previously, again all of them alive.

What kills isn't speed, what kills is inappropriate use of speed and
more often even than that, what kills is stupidity. That stupidity is
also often not that of the person travelling at speed, but the stupidity
of someone else. However in our society, we seem to condone acts of
criminal stupidity and negligence just as long as the person doing the
bimbling is judged to be "nice" or to "have good intentions".
 
Tony B wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>
>> There are only two possibilities, aren't there?
>
> maybe a third - she could be one of those that does 45 EVERYWHERE
> regardless of speed limits, you know the ones... forty five in a NSL,
> head into a forty limit, still forty five, then straight through the
> thirty section (still doing a steady forty five) and back out onto the
> countryside again, back to NSL and still do... forty five. In which
> case, she would be pretty certain of her speed at any time would she not.

There are a lot of those about...

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
 
In article <a55c3f16-e1c0-4206-8c8d-1c923229c7d2@
34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
> > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
> >
> > > "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?
> >
>
> No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> objects, but only one vehicle?
>
Are you honestly that dumb? Is a tree a vehicle? No. Therefore a tree
being hit by a car is a single vehicle collision even though there are
two objects.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
 
On 19 May, 17:37, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <a55c3f16-e1c0-4206-8c8d-1c923229c7d2@
> 34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > On 19 May, 01:06, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <8cee58e4-d2a4-47c3-bcde-9ea9fe6eb554
> > > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > > > "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?
>
> > No, but I have Google if I cared. I was assuming that Brimstone was
> > making some abstract joke with his "A single vehicle collisions". It
> > kind of appealed to me, but never mind. He may just have made an
> > error. Weird that, for a motorist.
>
> > But surely a car colliding with a tree, or a dangerous banana even,
> > still involves two objects? Still takes two to tango. A car hitting a
> > pedestrian could be seen as a single vehicle collision, I suppose. Two
> > objects, but only one vehicle?
>
> Are you honestly that dumb? Is a tree a vehicle? No. Therefore a tree
> being hit by a car is a single vehicle collision even though there are
> two objects.
>

Definition from Google:-

collision
Noun
1. a violent crash between moving objects
 
On 19 May, 11:54, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 18 May, 17:21, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 19:57, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Tony Dragon 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 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...
> >>>>> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
> >>>> Agree with it?
> >>>> He doesn't recognise the concept.
> >>> To self-quote from a couple of years ago on uk.legal:-
> >>> "As a cyclist, I am getting more and more angered by cyclists ignoring
> >>> red lights at pedestrian crossings, where the cars have managed to
> >>> stop
> >>> in time, and where I am waiting to wheel my bike across the road. Just
> >>> shouting "Buy a car, you [insert favoured term]" does not satisfy any
> >>> more. If I decide to walk out on to the crossing, when I have a green
> >>> man signal in my favour, in front of a speeding cyclist who is
> >>> obviously intent on not stopping, am I breaking a law? The cyclist is,
> >>> after all, intentionally intimidating me and others from crossing
> >>> (threatening behaviour?). And yes, I do realise that both of us may be
> >>> hurt.
> >>> Is there a right of self-defence in this situation? "
> >>> Also happens when I am walking across sans bike, of course.
> >> Haven't you (more recently) defended RLJ-jumping by cyclists at
> >> junctions? And footway-cycling?
>
> > Chapter and verse (and context)?
>
> Aren't youn the chap who (fairly recently) attacked the City of London
> Police for enforcing the law on traffic lights?

Cite? Doesn't sound like me. I hate RLJers, much as I hate speeding
motorists (or, let's be honest, often just motorists).
 
On 19 May, 08:29, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > 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.
>
> Except that in neither case was the speed of the vehicle the cause of the
> incident.

If Campbell had crashed at a much slower speed, in all probability he
would not have been in the soup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
0
Views
463
UK and Europe
Phil Armstrong
P
D
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
2
Views
471
UK and Europe
_
?
C
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
0
Views
396
UK and Europe
Conor
C
I
Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Replies
1
Views
464
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
Top Bottom Back