Red light jumping.

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:42:46 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>>>> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>>>> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>>>> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>>>> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>>> Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
>>> wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
>>> guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
>>> your aim?
>> No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
>> act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
>> risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
>> non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.
>
> That is pandering to the wails of the "lycra louts are a menace"
> brigade.

Not at all. It's showing genuine concern for road safety.

> There's nothing wrong in pointing out the
> hysteria-to-actual_danger ratio to get things in perspective.

Agreed, but that doesn't involve other road user types.

> Then the
> true picture would emerge that cyclists actually represent very little
> danger to anyone.

Possibly, but how does highlighting the bad behaviour of other users
impact that?

> Then, one might reasonably conclude, there is very
> little to clean up.

"Perception" and "preconceptions" are a big factors, unfortunately.

> Trivial matters deserve trivialisation.

Not if it damages the chances of achieving the ultimate goal.

> BTW, I saw /loads/ of RLJing cyclists this morning. They were /all/
> courteously letting peds go first or giving them a very wide berth, and
> watching carefully for cross traffic, before enjoying their tiny time
> slice of traffic-free road. Oddly enough, my face didn't turn red and I
> wasn't foaming at the mouth. Isn't that strange?



--
Matt B

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning I'd
> > guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights when
> > the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about 8 who
> > would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them again on
> > the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to come and film
> > it?
>
> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?

Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[David Lloyd]

On 13 Jun, 09:42, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
> > <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
> >> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
> >> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
> >> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
> >> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>
> > Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
> > wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
> > guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
> > your aim?
>
> No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
> act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
> risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
> non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.
>
> --
> Matt B

The problem here is that there are many types of people who ride
bikes, ranging from POBS, through law-abiding commuters, to hardened
road warriors. Your basic Pedestrian On Bike knows nothing of, and
cares nothing for, the rules of the road, seeing the bike just as a
faster way of walking. They would not be swayed by the opinions of
serious cyclists to their conduct. The commited commuter will stick to
all rules, and criticise those who don't. A road warrior will use
rules as a guideline, but will bend an break them when they see fit,
justifying any potential danger as being their own look-out. I'm sure
you could classify drivers in several categories, as well. Our problem
is that we are all tarred with the same brush by the malicious petrol
heads (eg Clarkson) that have access to the media.

David Lloyd

 

[dkahn400]

On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

Doubt it.

--
Dave...

 

[Andrew Chadwick]

On 2007-06-12 17:54 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> The second driver crossed a red light on a pedestrian
> crossing whilst the person was still crossing.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJqwjt_9k

Similar happened to me recently in a 20 zone of single-carriageway road
in a residential/commercial area. I'm in the primary position
approaching a zebra crossing, and someone starts crossing from the
right, so I stop. Car immediately behind me honks, but I shrug it off:
visibility was a little obstructed by commercial vans unloading, and the
driver did stop.

Not 50m on from that on the same road, a pedestrian crossing turns red,
and a pedestrian begins to cross from the left. I'm still in the primary
position - as recommended by road markers, no less[1]. The driver behind
me has a clear view of everything this time, and also a clear run at an
overtake. So he does, while the pedestrian and I stand our ground and
shake our heads at the general impatient idiocy of the world, and
incompetent drivers in particular.

As it happens, the driver - though an impatient RLJing foul-yob -
managed to overtake ped and myself with pretty reasonable margins if you
ignore the fact of the light being red. But that's not the point, is it?


[1] green tarmac repeater blobs centrally positioned in the carriageway,
with standard cycle symbols painted on them in white plus a cycle
lane at the entrance of the stretch which expands in width to fill
the whole carriageway and then appears to end but for the repeaters.
Guess they ran out of green paint or something.

--
Andrew Chadwick

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>>
>> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning
>> > I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights
>> > when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about
>> > 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them
>> > again on the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to
>> > come and film it?
>>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>
> D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
>
> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

why are you so hostile!

Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.

>
> regards, Ian SMith

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:50:18 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

> Dead Paul said the following on 13/06/2007 10:36:
>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
> <snip>
>
> Try reading the post you're replying to properly, then an apology to POHB
> might be accepted.

Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
message.

If POHB isn't big enough to take a little misunderstanding like that in
his stride (as you appear unable to) then of course he'll get a full
explanation.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:43:47 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> In news:[email protected], Dead Paul <[email protected]>
> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law. You might have thought
>> the way was clear and hence safe to jump the lights but you may have
>> missed an approaching vehicle or bike. If their lights were on red the
>> chances are they would stop and you'd be safe but if theirs were on
>> green they would have no expectation that you would choose that moment
>> to venture out on your suicide mission. It was a gamble and you chose to
>> gamble with others lives as well as your own. You should stick to rock
>> climbing or whatever sport will satisfy your death wish and not endanger
>> the lives of others.
>
> I've re-read POHB's post half a dozen times now, and nowhere does s/he say
> s/he jumped a red light.
>
> Back in your box, laddie.

FOC

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[wheelist]

Christian Wolmar makes some good points about cyclists RLJing in his new online blog: http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/online_column/may07.shtml

I'm in the enviable position of not having a single set of lights on my 30 mile daily commute, just a couple of lollipop ladies who always say hello. Nice.

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:01:39 +0000, dkahn400 wrote:

> On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>
> Doubt it.

Yes, the silly **** is hardly legible himself. Too much sitting on a hard
little seat I bet.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:10 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning
> >> > I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights
> >> > when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about
> >> > 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them
> >> > again on the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to
> >> > come and film it?
> >>
> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> >> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
> >
> > D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
> >
> > Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>
> why are you so hostile!

Can we just check the situation here?

_YOU_ make a posting accusing someone of jumping red lights and
demanding all but their summary execution, but it's _ME_ that you
think is being hostile?

Why were you so hostile?

> Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.

There are lots of things you didn't say which would have been
reasonable things to say. Unfortunately, you didn't say them, and the
things you did say were not reasonable. Observing that if you'd said
something else entirely that might not have been a really stupid thing
to say is not really relevant, I think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Paul Boyd]

Dead Paul said the following on 13/06/2007 15:13:

> Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
> message.

Same what? Why should I try to second guess what you really mean when
you left no room for ambiguity in your post. You laid into POHB
directly, not to any abstract people. If there had been room for
ambiguity, then you might have been given the benefit of the doubt, but
your message was clear.

Your action of immediately going on the defensive is an indication that
you know you were wrong, but won't admit it.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:39:19 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:10 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
>> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for
>> >> > red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a
>> >> > pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I
>> >> > would overtake them again on the next stretch. This happens every
>> >> > day, would you like to come and film it?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump
>> >> red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>> >
>> > D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
>> >
>> > Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>>
>> why are you so hostile!
>
> Can we just check the situation here?
>
> _YOU_ make a posting accusing someone of jumping red lights and demanding
> all but their summary execution, but it's _ME_ that you think is being
> hostile?
>
> Why were you so hostile?

Don't make me laugh.

I merely made a mistake which you (if you were considerate instead of
hostile) could have realised and brought to my attention without the
unnecessary criticism.


>> Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.
>
> There are lots of things you didn't say which would have been reasonable
> things to say.

I don't care if you think I should have mentioned the kitchen sink.
I said what I said and I believe I mentioned the single most important
and relevant point concerning jumping red lights. If you have other points
relevant and important then tell them instead of trying to worm your way
out.

> Unfortunately, you didn't say them,

So you say but that could be just hot air. I doubt you will trump the
point I made.

> and the things you did
> say were not reasonable.

The only unreasonable thing here is your attitude.

>Observing that if you'd said something else
> entirely that might not have been a really stupid thing to say is not
> really relevant, I think.

I presume you are talking about my correction (them/they for you).
Well, if you didn't like me correcting my mistake then that only
worsens the case against you.

I'm happy to admit and correct my error. You are hostile calling it
stupid and needlessly positing that I may not speak English (a very stupid
comment from you).

enjoy old boy.

>
> regards, Ian SMith

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[POHB]

> >> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
> >> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for
> >> >> > red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a
> >> >> > pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I
> >> >> > would overtake them again on the next stretch. This happens every
> >> >> > day, would you like to come and film it?
>
> >> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump
> >> >> red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

Calm down now lads.
Just to clarify, it wasn't me jumping the lights.
And I accept the apology I'm sure was somewhere in the thread.

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:00:50 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> >lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

>Try reading the post you're replying to properly, then an apology to POHB
>might be accepted.

>
>> Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
>> message.
>
> Same what? Why should I try to second guess what you really mean when you
> left no room for ambiguity in your post.

Read the other post and you'll see. I don't see why I should repeat myself.
Most people tend to read the thread not just one or two particular
messages unless of course they are only interested in particular posters
and I cant imagine why that would apply to me.

> You laid into POHB directly, not
> to any abstract people.

Who the hell are you to demand apologies on behalf of others? If I were
POHB I'd be looking askance at you. Any reasonable person could see
that I'd made a simple mistake of identity in his message

> If there had been room for ambiguity, then you
> might have been given the benefit of the doubt, but your message was
> clear.

Of course I expected you to have read the other posts as would anyone else
have done.

> Your action of immediately going on the defensive is an indication that
> you know you were wrong, but won't admit it.

You talk shite, I have admitted ande corrected my mistake. You're just
another whining loser.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:08:35 -0700, POHB wrote:

>> >> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
>> >> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop
>> >> >> > for red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog
>> >> >> > with a pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and
>> >> >> > then I would overtake them again on the next stretch. This
>> >> >> > happens every day, would you like to come and film it?
>>
>> >> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you
>> >> >> jump red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>
> Calm down now lads.
> Just to clarify, it wasn't me jumping the lights. And I accept the apology
> I'm sure was somewhere in the thread.


Well no, but as you're here now. Sorry.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:

> Most people tend to read the thread

While some just assume they know what it says and start laying into
people with reading anything properly at all...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[mb]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:

>
> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
> complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
> never do.
>

Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Martin Dann]

mb wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
>> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
>> complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
>> never do.
>>
>
> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY

Yes, but you are on the wrong side of the road. That
person cycling on his left had to swerve out of your way. ;-)



Martin.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dead Paul <[email protected]>:
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>>Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>why are you so hostile!

Because you're a cretin, and boy, do we have a fine crop of cretins at the
moment. *plink*
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace