Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Steve Firth on 31 Jul 2010 19:42 Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > In recent years there has been a policy to lengthen this period. This is > not, as many would claim, to delay traffic more. Bullshit. And I speak as someone with a background in Traffic Control Systems and Telematics.
From: Colin McKenzie on 31 Jul 2010 19:53 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:42:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: >> In recent years there has been a policy to lengthen this period. This is >> not, as many would claim, to delay traffic more. > > Bullshit. And I speak as someone with a background in Traffic Control > Systems and Telematics. Which of my sentences above are you being rude about? And is your 'background' current, or some years ago, and if so how many? Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
From: Doug on 1 Aug 2010 03:50 On 31 July, 08:39, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > From the court reports in my local newspaper: > > Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a > motor vehicle - Fine and costs £200 plus three penalty points on his > licence. > > Motorist failed to comply with a red traffic light while driving a > motor vehicle - Fine and costs £110 plus three penalty points on her > licence. > > Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention - Fine and > costs £190 plus 5 penalty points. > > Faulty rear lights on a motor vehicle - Fine and costs £275. > > If only penalties like these were applied to cyclists, we would soon > see a drop in deliberate RLJing, no lights at night and the many > other offences that cyclists seem to get away with scot free! > The reason being cyclists are far less dangerous and much more vulnerable than drivers and cyclists are more likely to be the victims of their own actions. Also, drivers are killers of cyclists, not the other way around. Obviously the law takes these into account. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: JNugent on 1 Aug 2010 04:55 Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:00:26 +0800, The Peeler > <peelingthe(a)invalid.admin> wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:58:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >> <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Derek C >>> <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 31, 10:39 am, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Derek C wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> How often do cyclists get fined? >>>>> Fairly often but they usually accept the FPN of �30. If they contest >>>>> any such penalty and take it to Court then they will usually get hit >>>>> with a much bigger fine plus costs if they are found guilty to >>>>> discourage people from clogging up the Courts contesting them. All of >>>>> your examples and mine appear to be people who have contested it in Court. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tony >>>>> >>>> Come on Tony! Once in a blue moon, the Police send a few junior >>>> officers out for an hour or two to nick a few cyclists, because of >>>> political pressure from the general public who are fed up with their >>>> law breaking antics. They can't be caught by cameras because of their >>>> lack of registration plates, unlike cars. >>> This is probably a reflection of the fact that cyclists are far more >>> likely to be killed by a motorist jumping a red light than by jumping >>> it themselves. >> Where do you get this "fact" from? > > TfL and DfT. > > See also <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece> > - "Women risk death by obeying traffic lights". > > A bonus for you: I bet you didn't know that you're many times more > likely to be killed or injured by a car on the pavement than by a > bicycle on the pavement. > > Guy What does "injured" mean?
From: Matt B on 1 Aug 2010 05:12
On 31/07/2010 19:46, Nick Finnigan wrote: > Matt B wrote: >> >> Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do >> most crashes occur now? > > On roads where traffic moves at a slower speed? In 2008, 52% of all fatal crashes in built-up areas occurred at a junction and 70% of _all_ casualty crashes in built-up areas occurred at a junction. All of those crashes occurred simply because one road user assumed absolute priority over another. From those statistics alone we can see that our priority rules must be deeply flawed. -- Matt B |