Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mortimer on 31 Jul 2010 09:01 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8bi4rrFhbrU1(a)mid.individual.net... > What if you didn't have give-way limes or signs either, and there was no > defined priority - just an imaginatively cobbled or garishly painted > free-for-all zone in the middle? This is the case when traffic lights > break down (except for the cobbled or painted bit!), and in such > circumstances the junctions generally flow more efficiently. > > What about the danger of RLJers (deliberate or erroneous) - that risk > would disappear if there was no red (and no green) light? That sounds like hell. I like a situation where at any instant one and only one car has absolute priority over everyone else. A free-for-all is a recipe for disaster as everyone waits for everyone else or else everyone tries to barge ahead of everyone else; either way, the throughput of the junction is dramatically reduced. At least for traffic lights on a roundabout, normal "priority to traffic already on the roundabout (on your right)" rules apply if the lights break down, so there is still a defined "winner" and "loser" rather than everyone having equal priority.
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 09:35 On 31/07/2010 14:01, Mortimer wrote: > "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:8bi4rrFhbrU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> What if you didn't have give-way limes or signs either, and there was >> no defined priority - just an imaginatively cobbled or garishly >> painted free-for-all zone in the middle? This is the case when traffic >> lights break down (except for the cobbled or painted bit!), and in >> such circumstances the junctions generally flow more efficiently. >> >> What about the danger of RLJers (deliberate or erroneous) - that risk >> would disappear if there was no red (and no green) light? > > That sounds like hell. Have you watched the Cassini video[1], particularly the sequences where traffic lights are out of order? > I like a situation where at any instant one and > only one car has absolute priority over everyone else. And that is what causes most crashes in this country - the failure to concede that priority properly. Vehicles pull out of side roads, recklessly or erroneously, in front of other vehicles which aren't able to stop quickly enough (because they have priority). > A free-for-all is > a recipe for disaster as everyone waits for everyone else or else > everyone tries to barge ahead of everyone else; Stuff slows down to a manageable speed, and everything flows smoothly. > either way, the > throughput of the junction is dramatically reduced. On the contrary. Flow improves and congestion is reduced where such systems are in place. > At least for traffic > lights on a roundabout, normal "priority to traffic already on the > roundabout (on your right)" rules apply if the lights break down, so > there is still a defined "winner" and "loser" rather than everyone > having equal priority. Roundabouts are dangerous, and can cause congestion, because of the speed of the traffic with absolute priority entering from an entrance to the right. [1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YV3Cru7aE> -- Matt B
From: The Peeler on 31 Jul 2010 10:00 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?
From: Mortimer on 31 Jul 2010 10:01 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8bin4dFsndU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 31/07/2010 14:01, Mortimer wrote: >> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >> news:8bi4rrFhbrU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> What if you didn't have give-way limes or signs either, and there was >>> no defined priority - just an imaginatively cobbled or garishly >>> painted free-for-all zone in the middle? This is the case when traffic >>> lights break down (except for the cobbled or painted bit!), and in >>> such circumstances the junctions generally flow more efficiently. >>> >>> What about the danger of RLJers (deliberate or erroneous) - that risk >>> would disappear if there was no red (and no green) light? >> >> That sounds like hell. > > Have you watched the Cassini video[1], particularly the sequences where > traffic lights are out of order? > >> I like a situation where at any instant one and >> only one car has absolute priority over everyone else. > > And that is what causes most crashes in this country - the failure to > concede that priority properly. Vehicles pull out of side roads, > recklessly or erroneously, in front of other vehicles which aren't able to > stop quickly enough (because they have priority). No. I want to wait my turn and then know that once it is my turn I will not have to contend or share with anyone else - as for anything else in life, I do not like to share: I want exclusive access even if I have to wait my turn to get it. Of course ideally I want exclusive access permanently, but other people have to make conflicting movements which require me to stop for them, so time-sharing on the basis of "one winner, many losers" seems the fairest way. I'm not prepared to set off if there's chance that someone else will pull out / walk out and block my progress, requiring me to brake unexpectedly. When I am able to go, I want to be able to go and to complete the manoeuvre. That applies no matter whether I'm driving, cycling or walking. A few lengthy planned stops are infinitely preferable to continuous unplanned stops.
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 10:43
On 31/07/2010 15:01, Mortimer wrote: > "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:8bin4dFsndU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 31/07/2010 14:01, Mortimer wrote: >>> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >>> news:8bi4rrFhbrU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> What if you didn't have give-way limes or signs either, and there was >>>> no defined priority - just an imaginatively cobbled or garishly >>>> painted free-for-all zone in the middle? This is the case when traffic >>>> lights break down (except for the cobbled or painted bit!), and in >>>> such circumstances the junctions generally flow more efficiently. >>>> >>>> What about the danger of RLJers (deliberate or erroneous) - that risk >>>> would disappear if there was no red (and no green) light? >>> >>> That sounds like hell. >> >> Have you watched the Cassini video[1], particularly the sequences >> where traffic lights are out of order? >> >>> I like a situation where at any instant one and >>> only one car has absolute priority over everyone else. >> >> And that is what causes most crashes in this country - the failure to >> concede that priority properly. Vehicles pull out of side roads, >> recklessly or erroneously, in front of other vehicles which aren't >> able to stop quickly enough (because they have priority). > > No. I want to wait my turn and then know that once it is my turn I will > not have to contend or share with anyone else - as for anything else in > life, I do not like to share: I want exclusive access even if I have to > wait my turn to get it. Of course ideally I want exclusive access > permanently, but other people have to make conflicting movements which > require me to stop for them, so time-sharing on the basis of "one > winner, many losers" seems the fairest way. Possibly "fair", but unreliable, and you rely on others properly and conscientiously conceding when it's your turn. > I'm not prepared to set off > if there's chance that someone else will pull out / walk out and block > my progress, requiring me to brake unexpectedly. When I am able to go, I > want to be able to go and to complete the manoeuvre. Yes, but, with the laws of human nature playing a part, that cannot be guaranteed. If you are in a stream of traffic travelling at 30 mph do you slow to 15 mph at each likely source of someone obliged to concede priority to you? Most people don't, wherein lies the root cause of most collisions. > That applies no matter whether I'm driving, cycling or walking. That system has never been mandated, or even provided though for the majority of walking. How do you cope in office corridors, shopping malls, pedestrianised streets etc., where you have to negotiate each conflict of space? > A few > lengthy planned stops are infinitely preferable to continuous unplanned > stops. It depends whether we want free uncongested flow and safe flow or quick, but dangerous, spurts. -- Matt B |