Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 2 Aug 2010 08:31 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:10:21 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >"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! If you have them. And the batteries aren't flat. For some reason it is always assumed that the cyclist in question deliberately set off unlit, rather than the lamps failing en route. I don't know how often that happens but I guess it is not uncommon on country roads at least. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid.
From: JNugent on 2 Aug 2010 08:37 Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:10:21 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >> "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! > > If you have them. And the batteries aren't flat. For some reason it is > always assumed that the cyclist in question deliberately set off > unlit, rather than the lamps failing en route. I don't know how often > that happens but I guess it is not uncommon on country roads at least. But what is the correct response? If the lights all failed on a car or lorry, we would not expect it to be driven in the dark.
From: Sara on 2 Aug 2010 09:50 In article <dged565sfaubfv2fpqusd5fcp0mvse8uno(a)4ax.com>, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:10:21 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > > >"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! > > If you have them. And the batteries aren't flat. For some reason it is > always assumed that the cyclist in question deliberately set off > unlit, rather than the lamps failing en route. I don't know how often > that happens but I guess it is not uncommon on country roads at least. > Or you get stuck in a meeting *just* as you were about to leave work, which lasts a couple of hours... by which time it's dark and you hadn't brought lights with you. -- Sara Run out of ideas for a sig for the moment
From: Mr. Benn on 2 Aug 2010 09:59 "Sara" <saramerriman(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:saramerriman-172F26.14502902082010(a)news.individual.net... > In article <dged565sfaubfv2fpqusd5fcp0mvse8uno(a)4ax.com>, > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:10:21 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> >"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! >> >> If you have them. And the batteries aren't flat. For some reason it is >> always assumed that the cyclist in question deliberately set off >> unlit, rather than the lamps failing en route. I don't know how often >> that happens but I guess it is not uncommon on country roads at least. >> > Or you get stuck in a meeting *just* as you were about to leave work, > which lasts a couple of hours... by which time it's dark and you hadn't > brought lights with you. In that situation, you should find an alternative method of getting home. Bus or taxi or a lift from a friendly colleague.
From: GT on 2 Aug 2010 09:59
"Sara" <saramerriman(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:saramerriman-172F26.14502902082010(a)news.individual.net... > In article <dged565sfaubfv2fpqusd5fcp0mvse8uno(a)4ax.com>, > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:10:21 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> >"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! >> >> If you have them. And the batteries aren't flat. For some reason it is >> always assumed that the cyclist in question deliberately set off >> unlit, rather than the lamps failing en route. I don't know how often >> that happens but I guess it is not uncommon on country roads at least. >> > Or you get stuck in a meeting *just* as you were about to leave work, > which lasts a couple of hours... by which time it's dark and you hadn't > brought lights with you. Why not - what if you leave work early and get home well before dusk, but its one of those dark, rainy days - you still need your lights on and you should have them attached to your bike. That is how other road user's vehicles work - the lights are attached at all times and turned on when necessary. |