Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Doug
> Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Evening Standard today has the results of a survey by the Institute of
> > Advanced Motorists:-
>
> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484300-details/Charg...
> > the+red+light+brigade/article.do
>
> > "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
> > including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers, eight motorcyclists, one lorry
> > driver and 22 vans".
>
> > Apparently even cars do it
>
> so the survey endorses everything that has been said here:
>
> * More cyclists jump red lights than car drivers.
> * Cyclists simply ignore red lights.
> * Drivers take a chance in the first few seconds as the lights change.
>
> Excellent piece of research showing what stupid cunts cyclists are.
>
> > we are not worthy.
>
> You are fucking stupid, but this is hardly news given your years of
> bleating stupid arguments that even a child can see through.
Do I note a sudden upsurge in 'lets blame the cyclists shall we' on
this transport newsgroup? The motorists who dominate and infest the NG
must be feeling a tad harassed. They have had a go at just about every
other kind of road and rail transport recently and now its the turn of
the cyclists. Note though how they love those major polluters they use
for their holidays, planes.
I would just like to point out that, as very vulnerable road users who
face death on a daily basis from out-of-control lethal machines,
cyclists primary aim is to protect themselves, either by riding on the
pavements or going through red lights before the mass of traffic has a
chance to overtake them and force them into the kerb or worse,
particularly if they wish to turn right and there is no ASL, which
drives don't observe anyway
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Brimstone
Wrong again Doug.
Certain people have always been ready to "have a go" at cyclists.
You can't even get a basic fact lke that correct can you?
Why don't you just go and play with your friends?
Tony Dragon
And so the needle is put on the front of the record again, to play the
same message.
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
How?
--
Tony the Dragon
Ian D Henden
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3KadnV127ur...@bt.com...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 13 May, 23:25, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>> Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Evening Standard today has the results of a survey by the Institute
>>>> of Advanced Motorists:-
>>>
>>>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484300-details/Charg...
>>>> the+red+light+brigade/article.do
>>>
>
> Wrong again Doug.
>
> Certain people have always been ready to "have a go" at cyclists.
>
> You can't even get a basic fact lke that correct can you?
>
> Why don't you just go and play with your friends?
Spot the flaw......
Brimstone
re-instated.
> Please, doug keep this argument out of u.r.c., it's only going to
> degenerate into the usual nit picking, personal attack based crap that
> is endemic to u.t. and it is hardly interesting.
> Roger
> O, and another thing, please don't imagine that you speak for all
> cyclists when you defend pavement cycling or red light jumping.
There's only one person on uk.transport who does that, but he refuses to
learn from the sensible, reasonable people who use bicycles.
> Even
> if neither of these things were dangerous they erode our status as
> legitimate road users.
Well said.
Steve Firth
> Do I note a sudden upsurge in 'lets blame the cyclists shall we' on
> this transport newsgroup?
No, you shoudl have noted that a fuckwitted cyclist attempted to use
research that identifies cyclists as habitual red-light jumpers to
justify and anti-motorist rant.
You have denied in the past that cyclists are more prolific red-light
jumpers than car drivers. This research proves you wrong:
"At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
Usign Duhgmaths that's almost twice as many cyclists as car drivers.
Brian Whitehead
Surely that is 0.08% as many cyclists as car drivers, if we are using
DuhgMaths(*)?
* i.e. where Bollen can't be bothered to even try and do the calc, and
just makes up a number which suits his argument
Squashme
> > Do I note a sudden upsurge in 'lets blame the cyclists shall we' on
> > this transport newsgroup?
>
> No, you shoudl have noted that a fuckwitted cyclist attempted to use
> research that identifies cyclists as habitual red-light jumpers to
> justify and anti-motorist rant.
A RANT!!!! You great armoured jelly! A RANTTTT!!!! I thought that you
were tougher than that.
>
> You have denied in the past that cyclists are more prolific red-light
> jumpers than car drivers. This research proves you wrong:
>
> "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
> including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
Incomplete that quote, isn't it?
>
> Usign Duhgmaths that's almost twice as many cyclists as car drivers.
And using Firthanomics to slice and dice motorists:-
"At Trafalgar Square, researchers spotted 117 road-users charging
through lights after they turned red over a three-hour period. Fifty
one were cyclists, 13 were motorcyclists and 23 were car drivers.
Eighteen vans shot through on red, as well as four police vehicles not
on emergency calls, three lorries and five buses."
117 road users, 51 were cyclists, so 66 were motorists.
And:-
"At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers, eight motorcyclists, one lorry
driver and 22 vans. A similar pattern emerged at the junction of
Kensington High Street and Kensington Church Street."
101 road users, 43 were cyclists, so 58 were motorists.
So the majority of the perps were motorists, in this not very
scientific survey.
Conor
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> I would just like to point out that, as very vulnerable road users who
> face death on a daily basis from out-of-control lethal machines,
> cyclists primary aim is to protect themselves, either by riding on the
> pavements or going through red lights before the mass of traffic has a
> chance to overtake them and force them into the kerb or worse,
> particularly if they wish to turn right and there is no ASL, which
> drives don't observe anyway
Because jumping red lights worked out real well for that cyclist that
got killed the other month, didn't it?
I recall you bleating on about how it was the car drivers fault for
complying with the RTA, unlike the cyclist.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Conor
says...
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > Do I note a sudden upsurge in 'lets blame the cyclists shall we' on
> > this transport newsgroup?
>
> No, you shoudl have noted that a fuckwitted cyclist attempted to use
> research that identifies cyclists as habitual red-light jumpers to
> justify and anti-motorist rant.
>
> You have denied in the past that cyclists are more prolific red-light
> jumpers than car drivers. This research proves you wrong:
>
> "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
> including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
>
road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
hundred times worse.
Squashme
> In article <1igxg5k.d6vaq012fxypaN%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> says...> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > Do I note a sudden upsurge in 'lets blame the cyclists shall we' on
> > > this transport newsgroup?
>
> > No, you shoudl have noted that a fuckwitted cyclist attempted to use
> > research that identifies cyclists as habitual red-light jumpers to
> > justify and anti-motorist rant.
>
> > You have denied in the past that cyclists are more prolific red-light
> > jumpers than car drivers. This research proves you wrong:
>
> > "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
> > including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
>
> The figures look even worse if you are to take them as a percentage of
> road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
> hundred times worse.
You'd SAY it, would you? But what's that worth? Have you some
statistics, or just gut feelings? For instance, you could make
cyclists look "at least a hundred times worse" if you used journey
length, I should guess. And what does "worse" mean in this case? You
could look at the lethality of motor vehicles at crossings and lights,
compared to the lethality of bicycles at crossings and lights.
I'd say that looking at deaths and injuries to pedestrians at
crossings and lights would make motorists look a hundred times worse.
At least. Doubtless unfairly.
Daniel Barlow
> On 14 May, 14:32, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <1igxg5k.d6vaq012fxypaN%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>> says
>> > "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
>> > including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
>>
>> The figures look even worse if you are to take them as a percentage of
>> road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
>> hundred times worse.
>
> You'd SAY it, would you? But what's that worth?
Aproxaimately nada, rien, zilch, 0, nothing whatsoever, unless you're
looking at figures for road users by type of vehicle _at Piccadilly
Circus_. It's not exactly typical of the rest of the country, is it?
-dan
Squashme
Indeed, although according to Wikipedia:-
"It has been said that a person who stays long enough at Piccadilly
Circus will eventually bump into everyone they know."
Of course, in this case, if everyone they know is a motorist and a
RLJer, everyone they know will eventually bump into them.
Unless they stay on the pavement, in which case they may be safe,
apart from the odd cycle-tread abrasion.
Steve Firth
> > "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
> > including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
>
> Incomplete that quote, isn't it?
Yes, and nobody claimed otherwise, try again fuckwit. I'm only
interested in car drivers, since Duhg assures me that all other driving
is "in the common good".
Steve Firth
> I'd say that
I'd say that you're a brainless cunt. And that's the begining and end of
it. How many times have you fallen off your pushbike and onto your head?
_
Even if it were his maths would be wrong.
Squashme
Nonce, as far as I can remember. Anyhow, you'd fall out of your 4x4
armoured jellymould, if you weren't strapped in, with an inflatable,
and it didn't have stabilisers. And you wouldn't know which way to
fall without satnav.
The Luggage
Conor
@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> > The figures look even worse if you are to take them as a percentage of
> > road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
> > hundred times worse.
>
> You'd SAY it, would you? But what's that worth? Have you some
> statistics, or just gut feelings?
30,000,000 registered cars in the UK. How many bicycles? It isn't
anywhere near that figure.
So as a percentage of the road user type, an equal or higher actual
number than a group with a larger number of members shows them to be
far worse.
Squashme
> In article <b7f23e01-f861-49aa-9095-aa441cf4e800
> @y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > > The figures look even worse if you are to take them as a percentage of
> > > road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
> > > hundred times worse.
>
> > You'd SAY it, would you? But what's that worth? Have you some
> > statistics, or just gut feelings?
>
> 30,000,000 registered cars in the UK. How many bicycles? It isn't
> anywhere near that figure.
>
> So as a percentage of the road user type, an equal or higher actual
> number than a group with a larger number of members shows them to be
> far worse.
>
So just a modified gut feeling then. I'm sure that you are right that,
in this, cyclists are worse proportionately than motorists. More
cyclists infringe this rule, than motorists do, probably because they
can more easily get away with it. But, surely, it is almost always a
victimless crime. rather like speeding, I guess.
Brimstone
How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light, obstructs
the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
Squashme
>
I can't compete with that.
Thank you. I enjoyed it.
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
As I said "Almost always". Like exceeding the speed limit.
Daniel Barlow
> How can it be a victimless crime when a cyclist jumps a red light, obstructs
> the path of another vehicle and causes a collision?
Interesting, that wasn't mentioned in the report I read. How many
times did that happen in the aforementioned three hours at Piccadilly
Circus, then?
-dan
Squashme
Looks like it was one of those damned hypothetical cyclists. They are
the worst by far. The things they can get up to!.
Brimstone
light, or was the report limited to the fact of them doing it?
Squashme
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
Suck it and see.
Conor
@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> So just a modified gut feeling then. I'm sure that you are right that,
> in this, cyclists are worse proportionately than motorists. More
> cyclists infringe this rule, than motorists do, probably because they
> can more easily get away with it. But, surely, it is almost always a
> victimless crime. rather like speeding, I guess.
>
Ask the cyclist who got twatted by a car the other month and died, a
subject of another Doug rant, when he jumped a red light.
Phil Armstrong
> In article <1igxg5k.d6vaq012fxypaN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> says...
>> jumpers than car drivers. This research proves you wrong:
>>
>> "At Piccadilly Circus 101 roadusers jumped red lights in three hours,
>> including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers,"
>>
> The figures look even worse if you are to take them as a percentage of
> road user by type of vehicle. I'd say it would make cyclists at least a
> hundred times worse.
The two figures are not necessarily directly comparable. Cyclists can
filter to the front of the queue at traffic lights & jump them even if
other road users in front of them choose not to. Car drivers on the
other hand generally can't[1] jump the lights if the driver in front
of them decides to stop.
If all you care about is the raw number of light jumping events, then
you can use the numbers quoted above. If you want to argue that car
drivers are more law abiding than cyclists, then you need to know how
many car drivers and cyclists had the opportunity to jump the lights
in order to make a fair comparison. For drivers this number will
obviously be much lower for a busy junction like Picadilly Circus than
the total number of cars making use of it.
(The other obvious problem is that measurements made at one place and
at one time of day are unlikely to accurately reflect the reality
across the whole country. Picadilly Circus is not exactly a
representative junction either.)
Phil
[1] I have actually seen someone three cars back from the front of
a queue pull out and jump a set of red lights once. I think the
risks of meeting other traffic head on dissuades most people from
trying this on a regular basis!
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
Squashme
> In article <92895881-8d44-49cb-895f-e4e59ff0d216
> @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > So just a modified gut feeling then. I'm sure that you are right that,
> > in this, cyclists are worse proportionately than motorists. More
> > cyclists infringe this rule, than motorists do, probably because they
> > can more easily get away with it. But, surely, it is almost always a
> > victimless crime. rather like speeding, I guess.
>
> Ask the cyclist who got twatted by a car the other month and died, a
> subject of another Doug rant, when he jumped a red light.
>
As I said, ALMOST always a victimless crime, rather like speeding, I
guess. That accident took a cyclist jumping a red light, combined with
a motorist who was speeding and playing with her mobile, and probably
strumming a banjo, doing her nails and eating a sandwich too.
Perhaps they should stop using the cameras to trap innocent speeders,
and refocus on red-light jumping cyclists, who, as motorists know, are
the real danger on the roads.
Me
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, squa...@gmail.com says...
Doug
Well we know that the impact force from a car is very much greater
than that from a bicycle even when they are going at the same speed.
Let's say the bike and rider weigh 100kg and the car is only 1,000kg.
You can see the implication can't you? Cyclists 43 cars 270.
--
RoadPeace
http://www.roadpeace.org/
For road crash victims.
Brimstone
Indeed I can Doug. Those who put themselves in vulnerable positions should
make sure they're behaving in such a manner so as not to increase the
possibility of getting hurt. Don't you agree?
Conor
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> On 16 May, 14:36, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <92895881-8d44-49cb-895f-e4e59ff0d216
> > @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
> >
> > > So just a modified gut feeling then. I'm sure that you are right that,
> > > in this, cyclists are worse proportionately than motorists. More
> > > cyclists infringe this rule, than motorists do, probably because they
> > > can more easily get away with it. But, surely, it is almost always a
> > > victimless crime. rather like speeding, I guess.
> >
> > Ask the cyclist who got twatted by a car the other month and died, a
> > subject of another Doug rant, when he jumped a red light.
> >
>
> As I said, ALMOST always a victimless crime, rather like speeding, I
> guess. That accident took a cyclist jumping a red light, combined with
> a motorist who was speeding and playing with her mobile, and probably
> strumming a banjo, doing her nails and eating a sandwich too.
>
Tony Dragon
Could you answer this question for me to iron out any misconceptions?
Do you think it is OK for cyclists to break the law by going through red
lights?
--
Tony the Dragon
Doug
without prejudicing the safety of others then maybe.
Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
red lights?
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Brimstone
So that a "Yes" then.
> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> red lights?
No.
Why do you have double standards Doug?
Tony Dragon
Thank you for your 'clear' reply.
You agree with cyclists breaking the law
>
> Do you think it is OK for motorists to break the law by going through
> red lights?
Motorist should not break the law by going through red light, except
when they are allowed to under the highway code e.g. instructed by a
police officer, where the lights are not working.
One exception that I don't think is mentioned in the HC would be to
carefully get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
> In article <f8af5b4a-9bed-4848-b508-2b4ef015d206
> @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > On 16 May, 14:36, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <92895881-8d44-49cb-895f-e4e59ff0d216
> > > @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > > > So just a modified gut feeling then. I'm sure that you are right that,
> > > > in this, cyclists are worse proportionately than motorists. More
> > > > cyclists infringe this rule, than motorists do, probably because they
> > > > can more easily get away with it. But, surely, it is almost always a
> > > > victimless crime. rather like speeding, I guess.
>
> > > Ask the cyclist who got twatted by a car the other month and died, a
> > > subject of another Doug rant, when he jumped a red light.
>
> > As I said, ALMOST always a victimless crime, rather like speeding, I
> > guess. That accident took a cyclist jumping a red light, combined with
> > a motorist who was speeding and playing with her mobile, and probably
> > strumming a banjo, doing her nails and eating a sandwich too.
>
> She wasn't speeding..
>
She thinks that she was:-
"Coultas admitted that her BMW was doing 45mph in a 30mph zone when
she drove across a junction in Southampton shortly after 7am on 7
February last year."
http://news.scotsman.com/mobilephonedrivingban/Five-years-for-driver-who.3833105.jp
That may not be speeding in your world. You could have argued that she
was not playing a banjo, doing her nails, or eating a sandwich, and I
should have been forced to agree.
Simon D
"Coultas admitted that her BMW was doing 45mph in a 30mph zone when she
drove across a junction in Southampton shortly after 7am on 7 February
last year."
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Five-years-for-driver-who.3833105.jp
--
Simon
Squashme
Snap!!!
Bloody hell, there's an echo in here.
I blame Google. oogle.. ogle.... gle.
JNugent
Indeed we can.
We also know that the impact force from a bus or train is very much
greater than that from a car even when they are going at the same speed.
Let's say the car weighs 1,000 kg and the bus weighs 10,000kg.
You can see the implication, can't you?
Ban buses.
It's obvious.
Squashme
In the right or in the wrong, cyclists die. But speed doesn't kill, of
course.
"A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at speed,
hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
"It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
favour," he said."
JNugent
It is absolutely weird that she can be so specific about her speed -
almost as though she was watching the speedo intently - when she also
admitted being careless in so many other aspects of her driving.
There are only two possibilities, aren't there?
Either:
(a) she had/has/always will have no real clue about her speed (any more
than she had about the red-light-jumping cyclist whose route approached
hers at an oblique angle) and is merely going along with someone else's
guess as to whas her speed might/"must" have been, or
(b) she was watching the speedo so intently that she didn't notice
anything else, but can confidently assert that she was doing 45.
One of those has to be true and the other has to be untrue. And I know
which one I think is which.
Tony Dragon
Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
--
Tony the Dragon
JNugent
Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
JNugent
Agree with it?
He doesn't recognise the concept.
Simon D
>
> Snap!!!
>
> Bloody hell, there's an echo in here.
Sorry about that - pretty amazing coincidence though!
> I blame Google. oogle.. ogle.... gle.
Yes, quite.
--
Simon
Me
says...
they hit someone. It get worse, some trains travel at more 130mph, yes,
thats an unbelieveable 130mph, through urban and residential areas. No
wonder so many people who are hit by trains die. This is something that
MUST be stopped.
Doug
In a word 'vulnerability'. Roads are not designed for bicycles, even
though they pre-date cars, so a uniform law covering all forms of road
transport can put cyclists seriously at risk.
Brimstone
So are you saying that cyclists should not take care to avoid collisions?
Tony Dragon
Lets see, rural crossroad protected by traffic lights (road A crossing
road B)
Lights are green for road 'A'
Lights are red for road 'B'
Motor vehicle is driving a 30mph along road 'A'
Cyclist is riding at 20mph on road 'B'
Cyclist rides through red light.
Cyclist gets splattered by motor vehicle.
According to your new rules everybody was keeping to the law
Tell me who benefits from your new rules?
Now lets change the scenario slightly.
Substitute a second cyclist for the motor vehicle.
Tell me who benefits from your new rules?
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
> Tony Dragon wrote:
> >Squashmewrote:
>
> > Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
>
> Agree with it?
>
> He doesn't recognise the concept.
To self-quote from a couple of years ago on uk.legal:-
"As a cyclist, I am getting more and more angered by cyclists ignoring
red lights at pedestrian crossings, where the cars have managed to
stop
in time, and where I am waiting to wheel my bike across the road. Just
shouting "Buy a car, you [insert favoured term]" does not satisfy any
more. If I decide to walk out on to the crossing, when I have a green
man signal in my favour, in front of a speeding cyclist who is
obviously intent on not stopping, am I breaking a law? The cyclist is,
after all, intentionally intimidating me and others from crossing
(threatening behaviour?). And yes, I do realise that both of us may be
hurt.
Is there a right of self-defence in this situation? "
Also happens when I am walking across sans bike, of course.
Squashme
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 May, 09:44, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 09:28, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 15 May, 21:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
Does speed kill?
Squashme
> > course.
>
> > "A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light atspeed,
> > hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 months.
>
> > Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a clean
> > driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in the 30mph
> > limit and failed to stop at the red light on the junction with Gliddon
> > Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told Isleworth Crown Court.
>
> > "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red and
> > collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her bicycle from
> > north to south across the junction with the lights at green in her
> > favour," he said."
>
>
> Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law.
>
Which law are they breaking?
Tony Dragon
Does it make any difference?
I will ask you as well.
Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
answer.
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
Yes it does.
> I will ask you as well.
I thought that you were already.
> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
Do you agree with motorists breaking the law?
> Please try to answer in a coherent way so there is no mistake in your
> answer.
Coherent, with no mistakes? I'd stand out on uk.transport.
Squashme
>
> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
Nobody seems to be willing to defend the driver, despite your plea.
Why don't you have a go? You must have some sympathy for a fellow
motorist, who had apparently been as innocent as the majority of
drivers up to that unfortunate moment.
JNugent
> Does speed kill?
No, otherwise I'd have died the last time I flew.
JNugent
Haven't you (more recently) defended RLJ-jumping by cyclists at
junctions? And footway-cycling?
Squashme
Number 39 on standard response list.
>
> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
JNugent
Then let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking you the same
question. But, to be fair to you, let's make it clearer.
The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
I don't think anyone was asking you about armed robbery, domestic
violence, high treason or buggery.
JNugent
>>> Does speed kill?
Let me add a few more, in reminding you that soundbites and ad-slogans
are no substitute for research, proper scientific conclusions and policies.
Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you and
I DON'T bet that you drink Carling Black Label.
Advertisng slogans may be memorable, but that doesn't mean that they
tell you anything important. "Speed Kills" is right up there with "Beanz
Meanz Heinz".
>> Is anyone defending the driver's actions?
> Yes, you are now. You defend her speed.
I don't. Her speed was illegal. Elsewhere it would have been safe, but
in the Talgarth Road, passing through a red traffic light, it clearly
wasn't.
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
CHORUS!! There's nobody out there, Mr N. You're hearing those voices
again.
>
> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
what cyclists do? Just a smokescreen. Cyclists can take lessons from
motorists if and when motorists ever get control of the carnage and
destruction that they produce, by their "legal" actions, let alone by
their stupidity, impatience and aggression. Who is much more likely to
kill you, a decent, law-abiding motorist who has an "accident", or a
RLJing, pavement-pounding, contraflow cyclist from hell?
Strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
>
> I don't think anyone was asking you about armed robbery, domestic
> violence, high treason or buggery.
1 Never
2 Never
3 Never
4 Tried once, but my hat fell off.
JNugent
What plea?
I'm merely wondering what windmill it is that you are tilting at.
Sory about ending the sentence with a preposition.
JNugent
Are you talking about speed or speed in excess of a limit?
You appear to be making it up as you go along.
JNugent
What, not even Tony Dragon and Brimstone? So whom were all your
responses above aimed at?
Perhaps calling them a chorus was a bit OTT, but there's enough of us
for three-part harmony now.
>> The laws being spoken of here are the traffic rules which apply to
>> road-users. Examples include (but are not limited to) the requirement to
>> stop at red traffic lights (whether at pelicon crossings or road
>> junctions), to not travel in or on a vehicle along a footway or area
>> reserved for pedestrian use (especially in central urban areas) and the
>> requirement to comply with one way working (whether on dual carriageways
>> or in one-way-street systems). There are others.
> Why do motorists hypocritically pretend that they are concerned about
> what cyclists do?
Because the ones who express concern ARE concerned?
I am certainly concerned about risk to my family and to me as
pedestrians. I post as a pedestrian as well as a driver and (occasional)
PT user.
I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
"Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
Brimstone
> I'm merely wondering what windmill it is that you are tilting at.
>
> Sory about ending the sentence with a preposition.
(Tut, tut.)
Tony Dragon
Why does it makes a difference?
Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?
And to answer your question, no I do not agree with anybody breaking the
law (including motorists) see its quite easy.
And so far the only way you are standing out is by evading questions.
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
Glad you agree that nobody is willing to defend the motorist, are you
going to ask the same question again until you get an answer that suits you?
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
be able to understand what you read.
He said very clearly "I don't. Her speed was illegal"
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
He said "Elsewhere it would have been safe." He did not define
elsewhere. He did not say whether he was talking about places with
speed limits or not. I have assumed that he meant that the motorist
could have broken the speed limit safely elsewhere. Probably where no
annoying cyclist got in her way.
I take it that you agree with the rest of what I said.
®i©ardo
Not in isolation, no!
--
Moving things in still pictures!
Squashme
Me, huh?
Brimstone
> Guinness is NOT necessarily good for you, Bounty is NOT the taste of
> paradise, British Rail ISN'T getting there, Roses DON'T grow on you
Why do you insist on shattering people's illusions?
(Wanders off into the subset lamenting the fact that all the Guinness he's
drunk won't improve his health, that there isn't a sandy beach under an
impossibly blue sky with fair maidens cavorting in the surf wearing skimpy
bikinis in every Bounty packet, that he can't get there by British Rail and
that Norman Vaughan won't be stopping by with a box of chocolates.)
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
Quite so. It takes two to tango. One safespeeder, and one target to
get annoyingly in the way.
Conor
675460...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
>
> Does speed kill?
>
About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year old
car.
In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration testing
at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting that evening.
Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
series of Top Gear.
So I guess that's answered that question.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Tony Dragon
He said her speed was illegal, just because a faster speed might be safe
it would still be illegal, indeed a legal speed might not be safe.
Now answer the questions asked of you.
--
Tony the Dragon
Conor
@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
> So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>
Eating a banana doesn't kill until someone has an allergic reaction to
it and dies from asphyxia. Are you saying we should ban bananas?
Tony Dragon
Black Magic?
And as for the Flake advert!
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
Why? You are prepared to risk killing others.
>
> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
Have I said that I do?
Squashme
It is his only fault.Be gentle.
Tony Dragon
Try answering the question
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
Even Graf von Stauffenberg?
Squashme
> In article <66c96bc7-16bc-4851-b9d6-
> 675460064...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > Does speed kill?
>
> About 3 hours ago I topped 100MPH on a NSL SC B road in a 21 year old
> car.
> In a fortnight I expect to top 90MPH in flat out acceleration testing
> at least 3 times in one morning. I expect to be posting that evening.
>
> Richard Hammond crashed at 288MPH but managed to complete another
> series of Top Gear.
>
> So I guess that's answered that question.
>
> --
Nobody dies, until they do.
Squashme
Ehhhh????
Squashme
God, you're a tough interrogator.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Brimstone
If we are to believe Mr Nugent, then sadly not.
Brimstone
Why two? Have you never heard of a single vehicle collisions?
Brimstone
So the answer to your earlier question ("Does speed kill?") is "No", isn't
it?
Brimstone
Just like people who ignore red traffic lights then?
> Be gentle.
That would depend on the severity and frequency of the offence.
Tony Dragon
--
Tony the Dragon
Squashme
What I think you are saying is that it would be OK to break the law by
speeding, because it might be safer in some unknown way. So you agree
with motorists breaking the law.
Squashme
> In article <fa507d32-90af-4a47-9390-b3a2fc053cb1
> @b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Squashmesays...
>
> > So you condone breaking the speed limit "elsewhere", as long as the
> > driver thinks that it is safe. As this motorist thought that it was
> > safe, until she killed the cyclist. Speed doesn't kill, until it does.
> > If the motorist had gone through the lights at the speed at which a
> > cyclist travels, she would not have killed.
>
> Eating a banana doesn't kill until someone has an allergic reaction to
> it and dies from asphyxia. Are you saying we should ban bananas?
>
Yes, I'm with you on that one. If those bananas are killing and
injuring hundreds of people per year, then you should start a
campaign. Or have you just been annoyed by one overtaking you at speed
very closely, or even threatening to rear-end you?
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
"A single vehicle collisions"? Most confusing. Space-time continuum
gone bugger-up?
Squashme
> Squashmewrote:
Ummm, certainly would be, if you would have accepted that speed does
kill, if Richard Hammond had died. Like Donald Campbell did.
Tony Dragon
Yes of course that is exactly what I said, you only have to read my
posts to agree with you.
--
Tony the Dragon
Whits fur ye'll no gin by ye
JNugent
> On 18 May, 18:36, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
[someone else asked:]
>>>>>> Do you agree with cyclist breaking the law?
Don't be so stupid (not to say offensive).
>> I take it you aren't going to give a coherent answer to the question:
>> "Do you agree with cyclists breaking the law?"?
> Have I said that I do?
You could have simply answered the question when put or on any of the
occasions when it has been repeated.