Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Colin McKenzie on 2 Aug 2010 04:01 I'm not sure it's possible to have a civil discussion with you, but I'll try once more. On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:33:11 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: >> Do you have actual evidence of this, > > <sigh> this isn't a court of law and you don't have "evidence" for the > statements that you are making. So no, I don't have a handy couple of > notarised witness statements. OTOH I do know damn well what instruction > were given to the companies responsible for maintaining traffic systems > in central London in advance of the Congestion Zone referendum, and how > the changes were reversed after the Kengestion Zone was set in place. So. You have your experience, I have mine. The changes I'm talking about are not confined to the congestion charge zone. Regardless of what may have happened there, traffic light timings were and are being altered throughout London, including in places where the congestion charge can have no possible relevance. > You are trying, presumably deliberately to confound history, policy and > physics. It doesn't matter what the political climate is now, that > doesn't change what was done in the past. It doesn't matter what the > political climate is now, changing signal phasing to give a longer four > way stop doesn't improve journey times for anyone. You are trying, presumably deliberately, to imply that every increase in the all-red phase is politically motivated, to slow motor traffic, and none is for other reasons, such as safety. You may not have noticed that we are in agreement that excessive all-red time is a bad thing. > I'm guessing that you're one of the newbies who had no experience of > what a mess Hanger Lane was until a decent traffic engineer from Plessey > sat on a stool by the side of the road and worked out how those > responsible at the GLC had fouled up the signal phasing. Traffic light timings tend to be set according to traffic models and then adjusted in the light of experience. I am glad to hear the second stage happened at Hanger Lane. As it happens I use the Gyratory most days, and the northbound queues seem as bad as, or worse than, ever. Maybe other directions do better, but it's still a mess at busy times. That's because no amount of fiddling with signal timings can help if there's just too much traffic. >> I am involved in Transport Planning now. > > In what capacity, where? And I note that you say "transport > planning[1]", not "traffic engineering". As a transport planner. I won't name my employer because I don't want to imply that I'm writing on their behalf. 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: Mortimer on 2 Aug 2010 04:45 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8bn8niFlmvU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 01/08/2010 21:12, Bob wrote: >> > At the sorts of speeds that a rule-free free-for-all deliver, bad > judgement tends be lead to a "whoops, sorry", rather than anything > serious. If the free-for-all leads to speeds that are so slow that any collision would be trivial and many collisions would be avoided altogether, then I don't see how the throughput of the junction would be better than if 50% of the time traffic could travel at 30 mph and 50% of the time it was stationary. Anyway, it could be 100% safe but it still would be hellishly stressfull if you never knew whether you had priority over anyone else and had to be prepared to stop every few yards because someone might pull out in front of you. It's stressful walking along a street when people walk in front of me all the time and I have to keep stopping or avoiding them; why should we extend this to vehicles on the road as well?
From: Brimstone on 2 Aug 2010 04:50 "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:scydnd4rf_XgGMvRnZ2dnUVZ8oCdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:8bn8niFlmvU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 01/08/2010 21:12, Bob wrote: >>> >> At the sorts of speeds that a rule-free free-for-all deliver, bad >> judgement tends be lead to a "whoops, sorry", rather than anything >> serious. > > If the free-for-all leads to speeds that are so slow that any collision > would be trivial and many collisions would be avoided altogether, then I > don't see how the throughput of the junction would be better than if 50% > of the time traffic could travel at 30 mph and 50% of the time it was > stationary. > > Anyway, it could be 100% safe but it still would be hellishly stressfull > if you never knew whether you had priority over anyone else and had to be > prepared to stop every few yards because someone might pull out in front > of you. It's stressful walking along a street when people walk in front of > me all the time and I have to keep stopping or avoiding them; why should > we extend this to vehicles on the road as well? So that everyone is operating on the same basis. You would cease to worry about other people breaking the rules (which causes them to obstruct your path) because there would be no rules.
From: GT on 2 Aug 2010 06:10 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message news:bn5956pnb9eshr31coai6enfj01j29di60(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:58:02 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >>"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >>news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: >>>> From the court reports in my local newspaper: >>>> >>>> [snipped details of some motoring offences] >>>> >>>> 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! >>> >>> Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the >>> tine? >> >>How do you determine the risk posed by a cyclist with no lights on?... > > To you or to him? There's also a vast variation in risk depending on > the roads themselves. > >>A lorry driving along suddenly, at the last minute sees a cyclist with no >>lights on and swerves to avoid him. In doing so he wipes out 2 cars, each >>containing a family of four and the mangled mess then ploughs through a >>bus-stop of kids coming home from the cinema. > > s/cyclist/deer/ > > Or pedestrian. > > Or fallen tree. Just because others do something, it doesn't excuse those who should know better. Putting on the lights on your bike when its dark is pretty basic!
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 2 Aug 2010 08:28
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:31:10 +0100, Adam Lea <lea114(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >On 31/07/2010 22:36, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:58:02 +0100, "GT"<a(a)b.c> wrote: >> >>> "Matt B"<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >>> news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote: >>>>> From the court reports in my local newspaper: >>>>> >>>>> [snipped details of some motoring offences] >>>>> >>>>> 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! >>>> >>>> Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the >>>> tine? >>> >>> How do you determine the risk posed by a cyclist with no lights on?... >> >> To you or to him? There's also a vast variation in risk depending on >> the roads themselves. >> >>> A lorry driving along suddenly, at the last minute sees a cyclist with no >>> lights on and swerves to avoid him. In doing so he wipes out 2 cars, each >>> containing a family of four and the mangled mess then ploughs through a >>> bus-stop of kids coming home from the cinema. >> >> s/cyclist/deer/ >> >> Or pedestrian. >> >> Or fallen tree. >> >> The requirement to drive within the distance you can see to be clear >> is not contingent on all potential obstacles being lit. >> >> Guy > >In an ideal world, yes, no-one would ever make mistakes and everyone >would always be able to avoid anything and everything that appears in >their path. In the real world, however, it is a different story. > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjNE5hTXL3k >http://www.deercollisions.co.uk/ > >Personally, as a cyclist, I'd rather not emulate the tree at 1:50 in the >first video or any of the 42-74,000 dear in the second link. Sure, and for the same reason I always carry double the legally required complement of lights on my bikes and routinely spend more on the lights for a given bike than most people do on the bike itself. The debate over the use of tail lights on agricultural trailers in the early 20th Century went along similar lines. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid. |