Red light jumping.

[Martin Dann]

Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the
ride back up from the city center I saw two cars drive
through different red lights within a few minutes.

The first driver then did a u-turn at the next set of
lights which has a no U-turn sign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wARm0ObytD8
(It is very difficult to see the u-turn on film).

The second driver crossed a red light on a pedestrian
crossing whilst the person was still crossing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJqwjt_9k

In both cases the lights were red long before the driver
crossed the line.
My only explanation is that the drivers were confused and
frightened stuck in a cage, as opposed to usually being on
a bike.

Also I caught a taxi driver opening his door as I passed
his taxi (me in the center of my lane).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvc7QlonmCE

[Paul Boyd[_2_]]

On 12/06/2007 18:54, Martin Dann said,
> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back up
> from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red lights
> within a few minutes.

Seems fairly normal standards for driving in Bristol :-(

The camera must be lying though, because it's only cyclists that jump
red lights. That must be true because the likes of the Daily Wail keep
telling us so.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:54:58 GMT, Martin Dann > wrote:

> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the
> ride back up from the city center I saw two cars drive
> through different red lights within a few minutes.

I had thought I had perceived a worsening of motorist's response to
red lights. The two recent incidents (witnessed in teh space of one
week) that seemed to confirm it for me were:

1: Pelican. Traffic lights go red, pedestrian crosses. As soon as
the pedestrian was past the front of the car stopped at the lights
(ie, pedestrian is in the middle of the road, traffic lights still
red, green man still on, crossing still beeping) the car drove through
the lights and off. I caught the car up in the queue at the
roundabout about a quarter mile further on and since the driver's
window was open, stopped and told him that "a red light means stop".
He just gaped at me - no sign of any thought processes at all. My
fish look more sentient.

2: Also pelican (but a different one). Queue of cars along the road,
but the one at the pelican has stopped at the stop line, leaving the
crossing clear (which is relatively unusual). Young teenager was
waiting at the crossing, which switched just as I approached. So,
traffic lights red, green man, beeping, and teen starts to cross.
She'd done one step out from the kerb when the queue on the other side
of the crossing started moving - so the car set off, forcing the girl
to leap backwards out of the way. I didn't catch up with the driver
in that case.

And both of these are, of course, completely ignoring the systematic
red light jumping done by motorists who seem to think braking when the
lights change ahead might kill them.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back up
> from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red lights
> within a few minutes.

What's all this got to do with cycling?

> The first driver then did a u-turn at the next set of lights which has a
> no U-turn sign.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wARm0ObytD8
> (It is very difficult to see the u-turn on film).

Isn't there a green left filter arrow on in this one?

--
Matt B

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back
>> up from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red
>> lights within a few minutes.
>
> What's all this got to do with cycling?

At least as much as most of your posts, Matt



-dan

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back
>>> up from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red
>>> lights within a few minutes.
>>
>> What's all this got to do with cycling?
>
> At least as much as most of your posts, Matt

That makes it excusable does it - am I your archetypal poster?

Once a thread has already strayed OT it is fair enough to reply to
developing arguments. However, although I rarely start posts, if I did
start one that was so widely OT, I would flag it as OT.

--
Matt B

[Martin Dann]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back
>>> up from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red
>>> lights within a few minutes.
>>
>> What's all this got to do with cycling?

The first sentence was
"Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour."
i.e. I was cycling when I filmed this.

This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
never do.

<fx:checks google groups.>

The arrow on the traffic lights is a blue left turn only sign.
When the light turns green, a green left turn filter comes
on. (You can't turn left until this turns on).
Also in the background you can see the pedestrian crossing
has turned green allowing people to cross the road, hence
no right turn.

Now get back into my kill file.

> At least as much as most of your posts, Matt

I did not see TB had commented until you replied to him.


Martin.

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back
>>>> up from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red
>>>> lights within a few minutes.
>>>
>>> What's all this got to do with cycling?
>
> The first sentence was
> "Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour."
> i.e. I was cycling when I filmed this.

Ah, so long as you are cycling when you do it, you could film, say, the
changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, and then justify a post
about that. A bit of a weak excuse really.

> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press complain that
> we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists never do.

Do cyclists do it or not? This is a cycling group. You should be
encouraging cyclists to do it less, not justifying it because some
other, non-cyclists, may also do it. This is the sort of denial and
excuse that has brought cycling into disrepute in the press.

> The arrow on the traffic lights is a blue left turn only sign.

Fair enough.

--
Matt B

[Adam Lea]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't there a green left filter arrow on in this one?
>

Yes but the leftmost arrow is a left turn only arrow, the green left filter
arrow is just to the right of this and illuminates after the car goes
through the lights.

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:16 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:
>Martin Dann wrote:
>> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press complain that
>> we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists never do.
>
>Do cyclists do it or not? This is a cycling group. You should be
>encouraging cyclists to do it less, not justifying it because some
>other, non-cyclists, may also do it. This is the sort of denial and
>excuse that has brought cycling into disrepute in the press.

The press complain about cyclists' behaviour (real or imgined) and the
danger (real or imagined) that cyclists represent, not their denial of
these facts. If you have evidence to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to
see it.

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:16 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press complain that
>>> we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists never do.
>> Do cyclists do it or not? This is a cycling group. You should be
>> encouraging cyclists to do it less, not justifying it because some
>> other, non-cyclists, may also do it. This is the sort of denial and
>> excuse that has brought cycling into disrepute in the press.
>
> The press complain about cyclists' behaviour (real or imgined) and the
> danger (real or imagined) that cyclists represent,

Yes.

> not their denial of
> these facts. If you have evidence to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to
> see it.

Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
others can be condemned from the moral high ground. Hypocrisy
guarantees a bad press.

--
Matt B

[Roger Merriman]

Matt B > wrote:

big snips

Pot kettle matt, pot kettle.

roger

[POHB]

On 12 Jun, 18:54, Martin Dann > wrote:
> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the
> ride back up from the city center I saw two cars drive
> through different red lights within a few minutes.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning
I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights
when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about
8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them
again on the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to
come and film it?

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>others can be condemned from the moral high ground.

Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
your aim?

>Hypocrisy guarantees a bad press.

Hardly. Motorised RLJs are happy to criticise non-motorised RLJs, and
nobody in the press sees the irony.

[Dave]

"Martin Dann" > wrote in message
...
> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back up
> from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red lights
> within a few minutes.
>
> The first driver then did a u-turn at the next set of lights which has a
> no U-turn sign.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wARm0ObytD8
> (It is very difficult to see the u-turn on film).
>
snip

Don't want to defend him - but I couldn't tell from the video whether the
green filter arrow was on for him to left turn as it was when you got there.

If it was red then he was wrong - but it happens all the time here as does
driving wrong way up one way streets etc.

Police never around.

Dave

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>
> Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
> wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
> guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
> your aim?

No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.

--
Matt B

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:

> On 12 Jun, 18:54, Martin Dann > wrote:
>> Yesterday I went out for a ride for about one hour. On the ride back up
>> from the city center I saw two cars drive through different red lights
>> within a few minutes.
>
> Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning I'd
> guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights when
> the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about 8 who
> would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them again on
> the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to come and film
> it?


Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
lights or contravene any other road traffic law. You might have thought
the way was clear and hence safe to jump the lights but you may have
missed an approaching vehicle or bike. If their lights were on red the
chances are they would stop and you'd be safe but if theirs were on green
they would have no expectation that you would choose that moment to
venture out on your suicide mission. It was a gamble and you chose to
gamble with others lives as well as your own. You should stick to rock
climbing or whatever sport will satisfy your death wish and not endanger
the lives of others.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:42:46 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>>> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>>> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>>> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>>> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>>
>> Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
>> wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
>> guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
>> your aim?
>
>No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
>act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
>risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
>non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.

That is pandering to the wails of the "lycra louts are a menace"
brigade. There's nothing wrong in pointing out the
hysteria-to-actual_danger ratio to get things in perspective. Then the
true picture would emerge that cyclists actually represent very little
danger to anyone. Then, one might reasonably conclude, there is very
little to clean up. Trivial matters deserve trivialisation.

BTW, I saw /loads/ of RLJing cyclists this morning. They were /all/
courteously letting peds go first or giving them a very wide berth, and
watching carefully for cross traffic, before enjoying their tiny time
slice of traffic-free road. Oddly enough, my face didn't turn red and I
wasn't foaming at the mouth. Isn't that strange?

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Dead Paul > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump
> red lights or contravene any other road traffic law. You might have
> thought the way was clear and hence safe to jump the lights but you
> may have missed an approaching vehicle or bike. If their lights were
> on red the chances are they would stop and you'd be safe but if
> theirs were on green they would have no expectation that you would
> choose that moment to venture out on your suicide mission. It was a
> gamble and you chose to gamble with others lives as well as your own.
> You should stick to rock climbing or whatever sport will satisfy your
> death wish and not endanger the lives of others.

I've re-read POHB's post half a dozen times now, and nowhere does s/he say
s/he jumped a red light.

Back in your box, laddie.


--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured
screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of
the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard,
tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."

[Paul Boyd]

Dead Paul said the following on 13/06/2007 10:36:

> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
<snip>

Try reading the post you're replying to properly, then an apology to
POHB might be accepted.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:42:46 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>>>> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>>>> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>>>> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>>>> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>>> Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
>>> wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
>>> guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
>>> your aim?
>> No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
>> act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
>> risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
>> non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.
>
> That is pandering to the wails of the "lycra louts are a menace"
> brigade.

Not at all. It's showing genuine concern for road safety.

> There's nothing wrong in pointing out the
> hysteria-to-actual_danger ratio to get things in perspective.

Agreed, but that doesn't involve other road user types.

> Then the
> true picture would emerge that cyclists actually represent very little
> danger to anyone.

Possibly, but how does highlighting the bad behaviour of other users
impact that?

> Then, one might reasonably conclude, there is very
> little to clean up.

"Perception" and "preconceptions" are a big factors, unfortunately.

> Trivial matters deserve trivialisation.

Not if it damages the chances of achieving the ultimate goal.

> BTW, I saw /loads/ of RLJing cyclists this morning. They were /all/
> courteously letting peds go first or giving them a very wide berth, and
> watching carefully for cross traffic, before enjoying their tiny time
> slice of traffic-free road. Oddly enough, my face didn't turn red and I
> wasn't foaming at the mouth. Isn't that strange?

:-)

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning I'd
> > guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights when
> > the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about 8 who
> > would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them again on
> > the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to come and film
> > it?
>
> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?

Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[David Lloyd]

On 13 Jun, 09:42, Matt B > wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
> >> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
> >> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
> >> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
> >> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>
> > Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
> > wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
> > guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
> > your aim?
>
> No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
> act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
> risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
> non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.
>
> --
> Matt B

The problem here is that there are many types of people who ride
bikes, ranging from POBS, through law-abiding commuters, to hardened
road warriors. Your basic Pedestrian On Bike knows nothing of, and
cares nothing for, the rules of the road, seeing the bike just as a
faster way of walking. They would not be swayed by the opinions of
serious cyclists to their conduct. The commited commuter will stick to
all rules, and criticise those who don't. A road warrior will use
rules as a guideline, but will bend an break them when they see fit,
justifying any potential danger as being their own look-out. I'm sure
you could classify drivers in several categories, as well. Our problem
is that we are all tarred with the same brush by the malicious petrol
heads (eg Clarkson) that have access to the media.

David Lloyd

[dkahn400]

On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:

> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

Doubt it.

--
Dave...

[Andrew Chadwick]

On 2007-06-12 17:54 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> The second driver crossed a red light on a pedestrian
> crossing whilst the person was still crossing.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJqwjt_9k

Similar happened to me recently in a 20 zone of single-carriageway road
in a residential/commercial area. I'm in the primary position
approaching a zebra crossing, and someone starts crossing from the
right, so I stop. Car immediately behind me honks, but I shrug it off:
visibility was a little obstructed by commercial vans unloading, and the
driver did stop.

Not 50m on from that on the same road, a pedestrian crossing turns red,
and a pedestrian begins to cross from the left. I'm still in the primary
position - as recommended by road markers, no less[1]. The driver behind
me has a clear view of everything this time, and also a clear run at an
overtake. So he does, while the pedestrian and I stand our ground and
shake our heads at the general impatient idiocy of the world, and
incompetent drivers in particular.

As it happens, the driver - though an impatient RLJing foul-yob -
managed to overtake ped and myself with pretty reasonable margins if you
ignore the fact of the light being red. But that's not the point, is it?


[1] green tarmac repeater blobs centrally positioned in the carriageway,
with standard cycle symbols painted on them in white plus a cycle
lane at the entrance of the stretch which expands in width to fill
the whole carriageway and then appears to end but for the repeaters.
Guess they ran out of green paint or something.

--
Andrew Chadwick

[Matt B]

David Lloyd wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 09:42, Matt B > wrote:
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:32:09 +0100, Matt B
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Yes, "denial" was a bad choice of word. What I meant was, perhaps, more
>>>> like "trivialisation". The tendency to brush aside any criticism, to
>>>> even treat the anti-social actions as acceptable, because others do it
>>>> too. Condemnation is what is required, then when it has been eradicated
>>>> others can be condemned from the moral high ground.
>>> Eradication of anti-social behaviour is impossible. To ask that anybody
>>> wait for it to happen before they can criticise anyone else is to
>>> guarantee their silence forever. Is this really productive? Is this
>>> your aim?
>> No, I'd rather see a cycling group concentrate on cleaning up its own
>> act. By all means discuss other aspects of road safety, such as the
>> risks taken at traffic lights, but do not attempt to use the antics of
>> non-cyclists to bat away criticism of anti-social cyclists.
>
> The problem here is that there are many types of people who ride
> bikes, ranging from POBS, through law-abiding commuters, to hardened
> road warriors. Your basic Pedestrian On Bike knows nothing of, and
> cares nothing for, the rules of the road, seeing the bike just as a
> faster way of walking. They would not be swayed by the opinions of
> serious cyclists to their conduct. The commited commuter will stick to
> all rules, and criticise those who don't. A road warrior will use
> rules as a guideline, but will bend an break them when they see fit,
> justifying any potential danger as being their own look-out.

I agree completely. The problem I observe though, is that many here
tend to "close ranks" and attack anyone who criticises /any/ cyclist's
action, view, or assertion, or who defends "motorists" in general, or
offers an alternative analysis of given "facts" about a particular
motorist. This often descends into personal abuse and allegations of
ill intent, thus productive and informative discussions are stifled.

> I'm sure
> you could classify drivers in several categories, as well. Our problem
> is that we are all tarred with the same brush by the malicious petrol
> heads (eg [xxx]) that have access to the media.

It works both ways. Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists who are
interested in improving road safety should be able to discuss measures
intelligently with no abuse. How often do you see those who seriously
believe that road humps, or speed cameras are part of the problem,
rather than part of the solution, being stereotyped as "speedophiles"?
Anyone who argues against the orthodoxy in this group, whether it be on
helmets, segregation, speed limits, or whatever, is outcast and isoltaed
as a "troll"!

--
Matt B

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul > wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>>
>> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning
>> > I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights
>> > when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about
>> > 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them
>> > again on the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to
>> > come and film it?
>>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>
> D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
>
> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.

why are you so hostile!

Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.

>
> regards, Ian SMith

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:50:18 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

> Dead Paul said the following on 13/06/2007 10:36:
>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
> <snip>
>
> Try reading the post you're replying to properly, then an apology to POHB
> might be accepted.

Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
message.

If POHB isn't big enough to take a little misunderstanding like that in
his stride (as you appear unable to) then of course he'll get a full
explanation.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:43:47 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> In , Dead Paul >
> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
>> lights or contravene any other road traffic law. You might have thought
>> the way was clear and hence safe to jump the lights but you may have
>> missed an approaching vehicle or bike. If their lights were on red the
>> chances are they would stop and you'd be safe but if theirs were on
>> green they would have no expectation that you would choose that moment
>> to venture out on your suicide mission. It was a gamble and you chose to
>> gamble with others lives as well as your own. You should stick to rock
>> climbing or whatever sport will satisfy your death wish and not endanger
>> the lives of others.
>
> I've re-read POHB's post half a dozen times now, and nowhere does s/he say
> s/he jumped a red light.
>
> Back in your box, laddie.

FOC

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[wheelist[_2_]]

Christian Wolmar makes some good points about cyclists RLJing in his new
online blog: http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/online_column/may07.shtml

I'm in the enviable position of not having a single set of lights on my
30 mile daily commute, just a couple of lollipop ladies who always say
hello. Nice. :p


--
wheelist

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:01:39 +0000, dkahn400 wrote:

> On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
>
>> Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>
> Doubt it.

Yes, the silly arse is hardly legible himself. Too much sitting on a hard
little seat I bet.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:10 +0100, Dead Paul > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this morning
> >> > I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for red lights
> >> > when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a pack of about
> >> > 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I would overtake them
> >> > again on the next stretch. This happens every day, would you like to
> >> > come and film it?
> >>
> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> >> lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
> >
> > D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
> >
> > Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>
> why are you so hostile!

Can we just check the situation here?

_YOU_ make a posting accusing someone of jumping red lights and
demanding all but their summary execution, but it's _ME_ that you
think is being hostile?

Why were you so hostile?

> Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.

There are lots of things you didn't say which would have been
reasonable things to say. Unfortunately, you didn't say them, and the
things you did say were not reasonable. Observing that if you'd said
something else entirely that might not have been a really stupid thing
to say is not really relevant, I think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Paul Boyd]

Dead Paul said the following on 13/06/2007 15:13:

> Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
> message.

Same what? Why should I try to second guess what you really mean when
you left no room for ambiguity in your post. You laid into POHB
directly, not to any abstract people. If there had been room for
ambiguity, then you might have been given the benefit of the doubt, but
your message was clear.

Your action of immediately going on the defensive is an indication that
you know you were wrong, but won't admit it.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:39:19 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:10 +0100, Dead Paul > wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:36:52 +0100, Dead Paul >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:31:53 -0700, POHB wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
>> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for
>> >> > red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a
>> >> > pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I
>> >> > would overtake them again on the next stretch. This happens every
>> >> > day, would you like to come and film it?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump
>> >> red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>> >
>> > D O Y O U S P E A K E N G L I S H ?
>> >
>> > Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>>
>> why are you so hostile!
>
> Can we just check the situation here?
>
> _YOU_ make a posting accusing someone of jumping red lights and demanding
> all but their summary execution, but it's _ME_ that you think is being
> hostile?
>
> Why were you so hostile?

Don't make me laugh.

I merely made a mistake which you (if you were considerate instead of
hostile) could have realised and brought to my attention without the
unnecessary criticism.


>> Just substitute "them" or "they" for "you" - job's done.
>
> There are lots of things you didn't say which would have been reasonable
> things to say.

I don't care if you think I should have mentioned the kitchen sink.
I said what I said and I believe I mentioned the single most important
and relevant point concerning jumping red lights. If you have other points
relevant and important then tell them instead of trying to worm your way
out.

> Unfortunately, you didn't say them,

So you say but that could be just hot air. I doubt you will trump the
point I made.

> and the things you did
> say were not reasonable.

The only unreasonable thing here is your attitude.

>Observing that if you'd said something else
> entirely that might not have been a really stupid thing to say is not
> really relevant, I think.

I presume you are talking about my correction (them/they for you).
Well, if you didn't like me correcting my mistake then that only
worsens the case against you.

I'm happy to admit and correct my error. You are hostile calling it
stupid and needlessly positing that I may not speak English (a very stupid
comment from you).

enjoy old boy.

>
> regards, Ian SMith

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[POHB]

> >> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
> >> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop for
> >> >> > red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog with a
> >> >> > pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and then I
> >> >> > would overtake them again on the next stretch. This happens every
> >> >> > day, would you like to come and film it?
>
> >> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump
> >> >> red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

Calm down now lads.
Just to clarify, it wasn't me jumping the lights.
And I accept the apology I'm sure was somewhere in the thread.

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:00:50 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

>> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you jump red
> >lights or contravene any other road traffic law.

>Try reading the post you're replying to properly, then an apology to POHB
>might be accepted.

>
>> Same goes for you. Try substituting "them" or "they" for "you" in that
>> message.
>
> Same what? Why should I try to second guess what you really mean when you
> left no room for ambiguity in your post.

Read the other post and you'll see. I don't see why I should repeat myself.
Most people tend to read the thread not just one or two particular
messages unless of course they are only interested in particular posters
and I cant imagine why that would apply to me.

> You laid into POHB directly, not
> to any abstract people.

Who the hell are you to demand apologies on behalf of others? If I were
POHB I'd be looking askance at you. Any reasonable person could see
that I'd made a simple mistake of identity in his message

> If there had been room for ambiguity, then you
> might have been given the benefit of the doubt, but your message was
> clear.

Of course I expected you to have read the other posts as would anyone else
have done.

> Your action of immediately going on the defensive is an indication that
> you know you were wrong, but won't admit it.

You talk ****e, I have admitted ande corrected my mistake. You're just
another whining loser.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Dead Paul]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:08:35 -0700, POHB wrote:

>> >> >> > Not sure what you're trying to prove here. On my commute this
>> >> >> > morning I'd guess I saw about 1 in 5 cyclists bothering to stop
>> >> >> > for red lights when the way ahead was clear. I played leap-frog
>> >> >> > with a pack of about 8 who would get ahead of me at each red and
>> >> >> > then I would overtake them again on the next stretch. This
>> >> >> > happens every day, would you like to come and film it?
>>
>> >> >> Perhaps he should. People like you should be prosecuted if you
>> >> >> jump red lights or contravene any other road traffic law.
>
> Calm down now lads.
> Just to clarify, it wasn't me jumping the lights. And I accept the apology
> I'm sure was somewhere in the thread.


Well no, but as you're here now. Sorry.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dead Paul > wrote:

> Most people tend to read the thread

While some just assume they know what it says and start laying into
people with reading anything properly at all...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Martin Dann]

mb wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
>> This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
>> complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
>> never do.
>>
>
> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY

Yes, but you are on the wrong side of the road. That
person cycling on his left had to swerve out of your way. ;-)



Martin.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dead Paul >:
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:05:27 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>>Try reading the positing more slowly, you might understand it.
>why are you so hostile!

Because you're a cretin, and boy, do we have a fine crop of cretins at the
moment. *plink*
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 13 Jun, 22:42, mb > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
> > complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
> > never do.
>
> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY
>
> --
> Mike

Why wants the UK to be more like that?

Cyclist riding against the one way,
Cyclist riding with a brolly in one hand
Cyclist on the phone navigating a busy junction
and that's only watching it once...

[Marc Brett]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:34:50 -0700, "The other view point, there is one
you know..." > wrote:

>On 13 Jun, 22:42, mb > wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> > This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
>> > complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
>> > never do.
>>
>> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
>> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY
>>
>> --
>> Mike
>
>Why wants the UK to be more like that?
>
>Cyclist riding against the one way,

Legal in The Netherlands.

>Cyclist riding with a brolly in one hand

What's wrong with that? Should one-armed cyclists be banned from the
roads?

>Cyclist on the phone navigating a busy junction

Agreed. Cell phones are the work of Santa.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-13, wheelist > wrote:
>
> Christian Wolmar makes some good points about cyclists RLJing in his new
> online blog: http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/online_column/may07.shtml

As someone who thinks it's safer to be predictable (i.e. NOT jump red
lights), I think the wrong conclusions were drawn about the
(predominantly female) risk rate. The higher death rate was not caused
by stopping at red lights, but by going up the near side of a vehicle.

I avoid wherever possible passing any vehicle on the nearside on my bike
for exactly the same reason I avoid doing it in my car: the other driver
won't expect you to be there. The other driver only expects a pass on
the nearside when traffic is moving in queues, or when they are turning
right. If it's a traffic jam, I won't sneak up the near side between the
kerb and the stopped traffic (because sometimes, a passenger might get
out of the car and they just don't expect other traffic to be overtaking
on the nearside at that point).

In queues, I take up the position where the *right* wheel of cars travel
if I'm able to keep up with the traffic. It stops thoughtless motorists
from trying to overtake, and it makes me more visible so I'm less likely
to be SMIDSY'd. [0]

> I'm in the enviable position of not having a single set of lights on my
> 30 mile daily commute, just a couple of lollipop ladies who always say
> hello. Nice. :p

Fortunately, that's my current position also (except my round trip is 25
miles). I can make it to work most days without having to stop anywhere,
and only one stop at a T junction coming home.

[0] Sorry Mate I Didn't See You

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 14 Jun, 09:25, Marc Brett > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:34:50 -0700, "The other view point, there is one
>
>
>
>
>
> you know..." > wrote:
> >On 13 Jun, 22:42, mb > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> >> > This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
> >> > complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
> >> > never do.
>
> >> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> >> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY
>
> >> --
> >> Mike
>
> >Why wants the UK to be more like that?
>
> >Cyclist riding against the one way,
>
> Legal in The Netherlands.
>
> >Cyclist riding with a brolly in one hand
>
> What's wrong with that? Should one-armed cyclists be banned from the
> roads?
>
> >Cyclist on the phone navigating a busy junction
>
> Agreed. Cell phones are the work of Santa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Do you think that the brolly chap can safely ride the bike, wind,
'side draught' from a passing tram, lorry etc not to mention that it's
wider then the bike and rider could catch on something, or worst catch
another clyclist. All which could affect his balance etc. So do you
still think is ok to ride with a brolly?

One armed cyclist, hmmmmmm well he will only have one brake, one gear
change leaver, unless the bike is modified.

[Mark[_2_]]

> One armed cyclist, hmmmmmm well he will only have one brake, one gear
> change leaver, unless the bike is modified.

Gears aren't a safety feature (are you sure you're a cyclist?) and a front
brake provides all the braking power that's needed (tho an alternative
means of braking would be good). Control under heavy braking would be
compromised, so the cyclist would need to keep their speed down.

As to whether I'd condone it, well, a friend rides no handed with a brolly
(he's a unicyclist). All things being equal (particularly speed) I can't
see how riding with two wheels and a brolly could be less safe.

[Danny Colyer]

Mark wrote:
> Gears aren't a safety feature (are you sure you're a cyclist?) and a front
> brake provides all the braking power that's needed (tho an alternative
> means of braking would be good). Control under heavy braking would be
> compromised, so the cyclist would need to keep their speed down.
>
> As to whether I'd condone it, well, a friend rides no handed with a brolly
> (he's a unicyclist). All things being equal (particularly speed) I can't
> see how riding with two wheels and a brolly could be less safe.

Is his bike a fixie? Very few unicycles have freewheels - I've only
ever come across one, which I failed to ride. A standard unicycle is
easy to stop using leg power alone.

Also, in the event of a collision or sudden loss of balance, it's much
easier to leap clear of a unicycle than a bike.

That said, I used to juggle while riding my bike home from work. I
never felt unsafe doing so - even sitting up juggling my hands were
never far enough from the brake levers to be a worry on the road that I
did it on (excellent visibility, no cars parked on the road and it was
rare to see a moving car).

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[Danny Colyer]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>>As to whether I'd condone it, well, a friend rides no handed with a brolly
>>(he's a unicyclist).
>
> Is his bike a fixie?

Sorry, I did read the post, honest. Everything I pointed out stands,
though.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[Mark[_2_]]

>> Is his bike a fixie?
>
> Sorry, I did read the post, honest. Everything I pointed out stands,
> though.

I'm sure somebody somewhere rides a freewheel unicycle :-)

[Martin Dann]

Mark wrote:
>>> Is his bike a fixie?
>> Sorry, I did read the post, honest. Everything I pointed out stands,
>> though.
>
> I'm sure somebody somewhere rides a freewheel unicycle :-)

ISTR someone has a unicycle with one and a half wheels.
The half wheel driving the full wheel, which effectively
has a clutch when in certain positions.

Do you know if anyone has a unicycle fitted with a hub gear?

Martin.

[Marc Brett]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:23:34 -0700, "The other view point, there is one
you know..." > wrote:

>Do you think that the brolly chap can safely ride the bike, wind,
>'side draught' from a passing tram, lorry etc not to mention that it's
>wider then the bike and rider could catch on something, or worst catch
>another clyclist. All which could affect his balance etc. So do you
>still think is ok to ride with a brolly?

Bumberchutes are a menace for pedestrians on pavements, too. I hate
'em.

Nevertheless, I found that to be the most charming part of the whole
video. It means that cycling in Amsterdam is an everyday activity for
everyday people in everyday clothing in everyday circumstances. It
banishes the thought that it's a dangerous activity requiring
extraordinary vigilance, personal protective equipment, specialist
training, and dedicated facilities. I wish to see more cyclists with
umbrellas here.

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 14 Jun, Martin Dann > wrote:
>
> Do you know if anyone has a unicycle fitted with a hub gear?

Lots.

It's one of the periodic discussions - which is better, a big wheel or
a moderate wheel with an overdrive in the hub?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 14 Jun, 21:50, Mark
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_r eply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > One armed cyclist, hmmmmmm well he will only have one brake, one gear
> > change leaver, unless the bike is modified.
>
> Gears aren't a safety feature (are you sure you're a cyclist?) and a front
> brake provides all the braking power that's needed (tho an alternative
> means of braking would be good). Control under heavy braking would be
> compromised, so the cyclist would need to keep their speed down.
>
> As to whether I'd condone it, well, a friend rides no handed with a brolly
> (he's a unicyclist). All things being equal (particularly speed) I can't
> see how riding with two wheels and a brolly could be less safe.

hmmmm, if you can't change gear, as i'm sure you knw; you will loose
momentum, wobble and have to stop on hills etc, all not in your
control. if it was a fixed gear then... ;-)

[Danny Colyer]

Mark wrote:
> I'm sure somebody somewhere rides a freewheel unicycle :-)

Roger Davies (of <http://www.unicycle.uk.com/> ) has one that he
sometimes brings along to conventions. I've seen a couple of people
ride it, but I had a go last year and didn't get very far with it at all.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[Danny Colyer]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Do you know if anyone has a unicycle fitted with a hub gear?

The first one I saw was 12 years ago with a 3 speed SA hub (modified, I
believe, to be a 2-speed fixed).

Schlumpf now does a hub gear designed specifically for unicycles:
<http://schlumpfdrive.com/?sl=en&sid=&u_s=0&u_a=22>

I haven't tried one yet. Peter Clinch has. It's absurdly expensive.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[David Martin]

On Jun 14, 9:23 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
> wrote:
> On 14 Jun, 09:25, Marc Brett > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:34:50 -0700, "The other view point, there is one
>
> > you know..." > wrote:
> > >On 13 Jun, 22:42, mb > wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > >> > This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
> > >> > complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
> > >> > never do.
>
> > >> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> > >> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY
>
> > >> --
> > >> Mike
>
> > >Why wants the UK to be more like that?
>
> > >Cyclist riding against the one way,
>
> > Legal in The Netherlands.
>
> > >Cyclist riding with a brolly in one hand
>
> > What's wrong with that? Should one-armed cyclists be banned from the
> > roads?
>
> > >Cyclist on the phone navigating a busy junction
>
> > Agreed. Cell phones are the work of Santa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Do you think that the brolly chap can safely ride the bike, wind,
> 'side draught' from a passing tram, lorry etc not to mention that it's
> wider then the bike and rider could catch on something, or worst catch
> another clyclist. All which could affect his balance etc. So do you
> still think is ok to ride with a brolly?

Yes. With appropriate consideration.

>
> One armed cyclist, hmmmmmm well he will only have one brake, one gear
> change leaver, unless the bike is modified.

Nahh. I can ride my bike with a brolly and still have access to the
full range of gears and brakes (two in this case).

...d

[Roos Eisma]

David Martin > writes:

>Nahh. I can ride my bike with a brolly and still have access to the
>full range of gears and brakes (two in this case).

The first 20 year I cycled I rode a bike with just the one gear, coaster
brakes, and usually one hand in my pocket. I still didn't need the other
hand for gears or brakes.
Never been a fan of brollies though - can't trust them, they always go for
my eyes.

Roos

[the.Mark[_2_]]

In article <1181915076.669169.25080
@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...
> On Jun 14, 9:23 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
> > wrote:
> > On 14 Jun, 09:25, Marc Brett > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:34:50 -0700, "The other view point, there is one
> >
> > > you know..." > wrote:
> > > >On 13 Jun, 22:42, mb > wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:57:22 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
> >
> > > >> > This is exactly the behaviour that elements of the press
> > > >> > complain that we (cyclists) do all the time, and motorists
> > > >> > never do.
> >
> > > >> Bunch of fibbers. Here's a vid of a cyclist in Amsterdam, where, as we all
> > > >> know, cyclists don't stop at red lights:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLp1lhVlkY
> >
> > > >> --
> > > >> Mike
> >
> > > >Why wants the UK to be more like that?
> >
> > > >Cyclist riding against the one way,
> >
> > > Legal in The Netherlands.
> >
> > > >Cyclist riding with a brolly in one hand
> >
> > > What's wrong with that? Should one-armed cyclists be banned from the
> > > roads?
> >
> > > >Cyclist on the phone navigating a busy junction
> >
> > > Agreed. Cell phones are the work of Santa.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Do you think that the brolly chap can safely ride the bike, wind,
> > 'side draught' from a passing tram, lorry etc not to mention that it's
> > wider then the bike and rider could catch on something, or worst catch
> > another clyclist. All which could affect his balance etc. So do you
> > still think is ok to ride with a brolly?
>
> Yes. With appropriate consideration.
>
> >
> > One armed cyclist, hmmmmmm well he will only have one brake, one gear
> > change leaver, unless the bike is modified.
>
> Nahh. I can ride my bike with a brolly and still have access to the
> full range of gears and brakes (two in this case).
>
> ..d
>
It should be possible to have a bike with a twist grip and
trigger shift along side the front brake in conjunction with a
coaster brake. This would give a one handed person access to a
full range of gears.
--
Cheers
the.Mark