Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Clive George on 19 Dec 2007 07:38 "Roger Thorpe" <My_initial_dot_my_surname(a)warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message news:fkarpo$so5$1(a)wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk... > Clive George wrote: > >> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you say safe >> speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It depends on the >> circumstances - what other vehicles/people are present, how much can you >> see, how fast are they going. You're very keen on observing the hazards >> and making an appropriate decision when it comes to speed limits - why >> not apply this to other laws too? After all, it's easy to provide cases >> where it is perfectly safe to ignore a red traffic light - and indeed, >> it's even easy to provide them where it's not only safe, but doesn't even >> slightly affect other road users. >> >> And that applies no matter what your mode of transport. Of course, the >> fact that it's rather easier when you're small, manoeverable and have >> better opportunities for observation could be a reason for considering >> some modes rather more than others (and indeed the law recognises this to >> an extent). >> > Yes, you can get away with it without reducing your own safety too much, > but really, as a cyclist I'd rather you didn't do it. This sort of > behaviour just erodes our status as legitimate road users and antagonises > some motorists. That's an entirely different question - I'm not addressing that argument. I don't run red lights... cheers, clive
From: David Taylor on 19 Dec 2007 07:39 On 2007-12-19, Brimstone <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > What is the purpose of a bell or horn on a vehicle? > To provoke arguments on Usenet? -- David Taylor
From: Brimstone on 19 Dec 2007 07:45 David Taylor wrote: > On 2007-12-19, Brimstone <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> What is the purpose of a bell or horn on a vehicle? >> > > To provoke arguments on Usenet? Is the correct answer.
From: Clive George on 19 Dec 2007 07:49 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:sw6aj.14747$Hc3.8303(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > Clive George wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... >>> Clive George wrote: >>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... >>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very simple >>>>>>>>> ways to keep themselves safe - not obeying red lights for >>>>>>>>> instance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you seriously suggestion it is safe to pass red traffic >>>>>>> lights under normal conditions? >>>>>> >>>>>> The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you - is it >>>>>> dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will offer my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> You don't know why it would be dangerous to not obey red traffic >>>>> lights? >>>> >>>> I can think of cases where it would be safe to not obey red traffic >>>> lights. If you can't, then you're pretty dim. >>> >>> Are we talking everyday normal use of traffic controlled junctions? >> >> Define that a bit better :-) The strict answer is "it depends". >> >> (coz I'm not Brimstone, I'll not stop there.) >> >> Red traffic lights don't just happen at traffic controlled junctions >> - road works and road crossings are the two other ones I can think >> of. So that's one reason why your question isn't helpful. But here's >> the main one: >> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you say safe >> speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It depends on the >> circumstances - what other vehicles/people are present, how much can >> you see, how fast are they going. You're very keen on observing the >> hazards and making an appropriate decision when it comes to speed >> limits - why not apply this to other laws too? After all, it's easy >> to provide cases where it is perfectly safe to ignore a red traffic >> light - and indeed, it's even easy to provide them where it's not >> only safe, but doesn't even slightly affect other road users. >> And that applies no matter what your mode of transport. Of course, >> the fact that it's rather easier when you're small, manoeverable and >> have better opportunities for observation could be a reason for >> considering some modes rather more than others (and indeed the law >> recognises this to an extent). > > When choosing a speed to travel at, all hazzards, road & weather > conditions are taken into account. I am always going to be travelling on > the correct side of the road, in a direction other road users and > pedestrians expect me to be going. A 10% difference in speed is not going > to catch someone out, if the driver has chosen that speed on an accurate > assesment of those conditions. > > A red traffic light is an absolute message to stop. I know this and all > other road users are expecting me to comply with it. Other road users will > be approaching green traffic lights expecting the road to be clear. Many > motorists will not be observing either side of the junction for road users > not obeying the red. Therefore, not obeying a red traffic signal, has far > more risks associated with it than going a little faster than a posted > speed limit - one that has no idea of the conditions when I pass it. All that is true, however it doesn't alter the fact that there are cases where it's perfectly safe to not obey a red traffic signal. Red lights aren't sentient either... Once again, I'm surprised at the way you're letting dogma drive your argument, rather than applying the same process you do to the laws you want to break. (actually, I'm not entirely surprised - you've done that ever since you started posting to usenet.) When choosing to not obey a red light in a safe manner, all hazards, road and weather conditions are taken into account. Observation provides the information required to determine if it would be safe or not. I know it's often difficult to make that observation when constrained by a glass and metal box, but even then in some situations it's possible. clive
From: Steve Firth on 17 Dec 2007 14:50
JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Tom Crispin wrote: > > > JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > > [ ... ] > > >>>So what do you consider harsher? �300 fine for a cement mixer driver > >>>killing a cyclist, or 300 hours community service for a cyclist > >>>killing a pedestrian? > > >>We punish people convicted of offences. Offences committed > >>deliberately are rightly punished more stringently than errors of > >>omission and lapses of judgement. Or at least, they ought to be. > > > I very much hope that the cyclist did not deliberately set out to kill > > a pedestrian. If he did I think that life is the minimum sentence he > > should have recieved (for the pedants: the maximum sentence also). > > He cycled along the footway deliberately. It wasn't a mistake. He also ignored the pedestrians begging him to stop, slow down and get off the pavement. |