Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike Barnes on 31 Jul 2010 11:52 Phil W Lee <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk>: >Officially it's called the inter-green phase. >They keep having to extend it because of all the RLJing cars. The flaw in that strategy isn't hard to spot. -- Mike Barnes
From: GT on 31 Jul 2010 11:58 "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?... 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. Pretty big risk really!
From: GT on 31 Jul 2010 12:00 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jmhu6a.1oy7cp91fcdveoN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > >> Richard Hodgson, 53, of Maldon Road, Brighton, was found guilty of >> ignoring a red traffic light, cycling without lights, cycling on the >> pavement and failing to stop for police. >> >> Brighton magistrates fined him �700 and ordered him to pay �215 in costs. > > Do you seriously think that a driver who commited those offences in a > car would face a lesser penalty? > > For just one of those offences I can see reports of motorists being > fined at the same level *and* given seven points on their driving > licence. ....or even losing their licence - do we think that could happen to a cyclist???
From: Brimstone on 31 Jul 2010 12:02 "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:7OqdnVmEh_uT28nRnZ2dnUVZ8hSdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:qLadnYoBYMr13MnRnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message >> news:2te8561q3b1aj6cornsc5b8bah1pft8iic(a)4ax.com... >> >>> I'm fairly sure that what happens when lights fail is not a good >>> indication of what happens when they are removed. >>> It is dealing with the unfamiliar that makes drivers cautious, so it >>> doesn't last. >> >> It has in those towns which have implemented it, so we're told anyway. > > If when you get rid of lights you replace them with either a roundabout or > a major road / minor road junction (ie crossroads sign in one direction, > give way / stop signs in the other direction) that's fine. If you dispense > with the rules of priority, that's a horrendous situation because it leads > to doubt, indecision and barging. And it's that doubt which causes road users to negotiate with other road users to decide who gets priority. As I said, it's working and you're therefore arguing against a functioning system.
From: Brimstone on 31 Jul 2010 12:05
"Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:7OqdnViEh_uT28nRnZ2dnUVZ8hQAAAAA(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:qLadnYoBYMr13MnRnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message >> news:2te8561q3b1aj6cornsc5b8bah1pft8iic(a)4ax.com... >> >>> I'm fairly sure that what happens when lights fail is not a good >>> indication of what happens when they are removed. >>> It is dealing with the unfamiliar that makes drivers cautious, so it >>> doesn't last. >> >> It has in those towns which have implemented it, so we're told anyway. > > If when you get rid of lights you replace them with either a roundabout or > a > major road / minor road junction (ie crossroads sign in one direction, > give > way / stop signs in the other direction) that's fine. If you dispense with > the rules of priority, that's a horrendous situation because it leads to > doubt, indecision and barging. > > I repeast what I said earlier: there should NEVER be a situation when > driving where more than one person has right of way at the same time. There are already many such places. I've encountered junctions where there are no give way or stop lines. (No I'm not going to trawl through Google Maps to try and find them.) > Everyone should know who is defined to have priority Why can't they work with other people and come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement? > and anyone who disobeys this (whether driver, cyclist or pedestrian) > should be penalised heavily. Anyone who disobeys the rules of priority and > forces someone else to brake hard to avoid a collision, either wilfully or > carelessly, has no place on the road. > All the more reason for getting rid of the priority rules. |