From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)
>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> 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

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.


From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> news:a0_9j.17190$wD5.9435(a)
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Conor" <conor_turton(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:5sr39pF1ah14lU7(a)
>>>> In article <13mdbr8mjah3d92(a)>, Clive George
>>>> says...
>>>>> Do you really need it explaining? Are you that dim? Which is
>>>>> safer, a well
>>>>> driven car at limit +10% or limit -10%?
>>>> Holderness is full of single track roads with blind bends and high
>>>> hedges. They're all NSL. Are you really claiming that a well driven
>>>> car doing 54MPH is safe on these?
>>> Um, no. Are you really claiming a car doing 54mph on those roads is
>>> well driven? Are you really claiming that a car doing 66mph on those
>>> roads is safer than the one doing 54mph?
>> Oh, I see conditions are now coming into your argument. Your
>> automatic 10mph slower is safer in all circumstances is flawed.
> Are you going to continue crediting me with things I haven't said?
>> Speed based on conditions is what makes one speed safer than another
>> - a fact you prove in your reply..
> Just because you don't understand my argument doesn't make it
> invalid. What I'm arguing is mindbogglingly simple - you should have
> agreed with it straight away. Instead you let your pet "people
> suggesting driving slower = bad" idea dominate your thinking, rather
> than considering the actual point.

I do not agree with your argument that in all circumstances slower equals

From: MrBitsy on
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.

Right, so if the lorry driver does indeed pull up too close, the cyclists
brain needs to kick into gear - self preservation now takes over from blame.

From: MrBitsy on
Roger Thorpe wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> Nonsense, everyone has a speed at which they feel comfortable, this
>> will vary from situation to situation and with the amount of other
>> traffic, at this speed they are aware and concentrating on what they
>> are doing, make them go slower and their mind wanders, out of
>> boredom and their attention drops.
> This is the least convincing argument that I've heard. I sometimes
> travel for eight hours or so at an average of 16 MPH with no trouble
> at all....

Yet ...

If you do not understand a brain with less to do, is more likely to lack
concentration, then you have very limited knowledge of how the world works.


From: Adrian on
Peter Clinch (Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)>) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> Adrian wrote:
> [bike bell]


>> It's still a legal requirement.

> To be fitted at sale, not to be fitted in use.

Now read the context that sentence was in.

>>> What function do you think a bell serves, other than to warn a

>> other road user

>>> of the approach of a bicycle?

>> None whatsoever. Same as a horn on a car doesn't. In fact the HC
>> specifically says that's all it's for.
>> It's still a legal requirement.

It's not only required to be fitted, but the correct functioning of it is
checked annually by law.