From: NM on
Roger Thorpe wrote:

> Does anyone know if motorway designers consider ways of reducing the
> soporific effect and stimulating the driver? Avoiding long straight
> sections and varying the lighting spring to mind.

Travel on the autoroutes in Northern France and you will see evidence,
Oh! you can't, cycles prohibited.
From: Alan Braggins on
In article <D7baj.14781$Hc3.13169(a)>, NM wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <5sr39mF1ah14lU6(a)>, Conor wrote:
>>> Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of windscreens over
>>> 6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet in front of the lorry if
>>> you're directly in front of it.
>> If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right behind you,
>> that means going a few feet through the red light. Sometimes that's safe
>> and advisable, but sometimes it would mean pulling into the middle of a
>> pedestrian crossing which is being used.
>If you are approaching a cyclist stopped in the middle of your lane
>waiting a red light (I know this is extremly rare) then when stopping
>behid him you should stop where you keep him in sight, it's not up to
>him to move.

Exactly. Just telling cyclists to keep clear of lorries isn't the
whole answer, the drivers have to pay attention too. (Which almost
all of them do, almost all of the time.)
From: Danny Colyer on
> On 2007-12-19, Brimstone <brimstone520-ng01(a)> wrote:
>>What is the purpose of a bell or horn on a vehicle?

and on 19/12/2007 12:39, David Taylor suggested:
> To provoke arguments on Usenet?

Nah, that's the purpose of cross-posting.

Danny Colyer <>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
From: Ian Smith on
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:30:18 +0000, Steve Firth <> wrote:
> Danny Colyer <danny_colyer(a)> wrote:
> > Motorists, IME, have a habit of going through red lights.
> In my experience, that's a load of bollocks.

Ah. So what was the error in the RAC's survey that found exactly the
same thing? Obviously they must have been doing something wrong.

> > When a set of lights changes to red it is rare not to see at least
> > 2 cars, and often 3 or 4, accelerating through (not to mention the
> > 1 or 2 who should have stopped on amber but didn't).
> Which part of the world is this, and do you have any independent
> witnesses to these events, or possibly a reference to the large
> number of police prosecutions that must follow these events?

The RAC survey checked a number of locations in London and one or two
in a handful of other cities I believe.

Alternatively, to see cars going through on red almost every cycle of
the lights, you could try those at the end of Waterway Road in
Leatherhead, Surrey during 'rush hour'. An average of two or three
cars through red each cycle. Sometimes they're still going through
when the opposing traffic stream (that coming down Station Rd) has
green lights.

> It's beginning to look as if you don't understand the use of amber
> lights. And it also looks as if you fear something that doesn't happen.

No, red lights. At the location I have highlighted cars go through
the red light almost every cycle. The RAC didn't bother counting
until several seconds after the red light was lit and still found a
significant proportion of cars going through.

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
From: Brimstone on
Steve Firth wrote:
> TerryJ <jonestl(a)> wrote:
>>> is warned about the possibility of being run down on the footway.
>>> Not sure how blind pedestrians are warned of it though.
>> By those scary ridged tiles that they will insist on putting on all
>> the cycle paths.
>> A few wet leaves or algae on them and your blind ped will be able to
>> hear the cries of ''oops, going down'' as the cyclists approach.
> How odd, I've always been able to tell when a cyclist is on the
> footpath by the continuos torrent of foul-mouthed abuse they utter as
> they cycle along.

When was the last time you used a footpath for its intended purpose?