Sorry about this: Err what's the imperative for running red lightsplease

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by 'justifications' for
going through red lights. (1) It is surely more dangerous to appear in an
unexpected road position than the proper one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for
the lights to go green means you have to stay in the danger zone of the junction
for longer than necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.

Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the front of the
queue is justified could explain.


--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:24:42 +0100
Peter Fox > wrote:

> I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by
> 'justifications' for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more
> dangerous to appear in an unexpected road position than the proper
> one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for the lights to go green means
> you have to stay in the danger zone of the junction for longer than
> necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.

I'm not sure I understand your points. Skipping the lights means you
can take whatever position you want in your lane, because you don't
have to allow for the still-stationary cars at the lights. Waiting on
the corner you're either on the nearside because you're going straight
or left, in which case you're tucked away from any oncoming traffic, or
you're on the offside waiting to turn right, in which case you
presumably hang back to avoid getting flattened by traffic turning
right into your road from your left - is that what you mean by "danger
zone"?
>
> Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the
> front of the queue is justified could explain.
>
I wish they would offer a convincing argument or just stop doing it.
Ideally everyone, drivers and riders, would treat amber as red like
the HC says and only proceed on green, but that's probably asking too
much from a species that's wantonly destroying its own habitat.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:24:42 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:

>I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by 'justifications' for
>going through red lights. (1) It is surely more dangerous to appear in an
>unexpected road position than the proper one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for
>the lights to go green means you have to stay in the danger zone of the junction
>for longer than necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.
>
>Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the front of the
>queue is justified could explain.

I am not sure that I understand your points.

My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
stop line.

However, better than that is not to find themselves in that position
in the first place and take primary position on the road approaching
red lights - that takes confidence and experience and is not always
possible.

Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
gains eye contact with the truck driver.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:00:50 +0100
Tom Crispin > wrote:

> My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
> with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
> vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
> stop line.
>
> However, better than that is not to find themselves in that position
> in the first place and take primary position on the road approaching
> red lights - that takes confidence and experience and is not always
> possible.
>
> Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
> traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
> approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
> primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
> cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
> cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
> lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
> cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
> gains eye contact with the truck driver.

How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?

[JNugent[_4_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:00:50 +0100
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
>> My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
>> with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
>> vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
>> stop line.
>>
>> However, better than that is not to find themselves in that position
>> in the first place and take primary position on the road approaching
>> red lights - that takes confidence and experience and is not always
>> possible.
>>
>> Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
>> traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
>> approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
>> primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
>> cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
>> cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
>> lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
>> cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
>> gains eye contact with the truck driver.
>
> How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
> the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?

It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law and not
trying to queue-jump.

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:43:08 +0100, Rob Morley > wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:00:50 +0100
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
> > Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
> > traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
> > approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
> > primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
> > cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
> > cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
> > lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
> > cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
> > gains eye contact with the truck driver.
>
> How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
> the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?

Are you really suggesting that when the lights change to amber the
cyclist should stop 20m or 30m before the line? If you don't actually
mean a few lorry-lengths, your suggestion does not alter Tom's
scenario in any way.

If you _do_ mean a cyclist should stop 30m before the line, then
having stopped so far back from the line, you presumably expect the
motor vehicles following the cyclist will now squeeze past the stopped
cyclist, and probably intersect the line of motor traffic in the other
lane. Do you really think that's clever?

I can't see any possible reason for a cyclist, who is the lead vehicle
in a line of vehicles, stopping before the stop line. What did you
really have in mind?

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

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:01:32 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

>It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law and not
>trying to queue-jump.

Can you quote the law which says that cyclists may not filter?

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:43:08 +0100, Rob Morley >
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:00:50 +0100
>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
>> My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
>> with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
>> vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
>> stop line.
>>
>> However, better than that is not to find themselves in that position
>> in the first place and take primary position on the road approaching
>> red lights - that takes confidence and experience and is not always
>> possible.
>>
>> Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
>> traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
>> approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
>> primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
>> cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
>> cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
>> lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
>> cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
>> gains eye contact with the truck driver.
>
>How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
>the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?

Perhaps it would be better if drivers were fined for overtaking or
pulling alongside cyclists when lights are amber or red.

Likewise, I think that it would be an excellent idea if drivers were
fined for obstructing pedestrian crossings on red, as they so often do
in queuing traffic.

[Ben C]

On 2008-07-06, Peter Fox > wrote:
> I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by
> 'justifications' for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more
> dangerous to appear in an unexpected road position than the proper
> one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for the lights to go green means you
> have to stay in the danger zone of the junction for longer than
> necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.
>
> Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the
> front of the queue is justified could explain.

It gets you out of the way of all the cars. If you sit there and wait
for the lights to go green in the middle of the queue you're wobbling
off trying to clip your feet into the pedals while surrounded by
everyone charging off and possibly turning across you.

Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a grand
prix.

In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out of the
way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit as they
turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.

The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well clear of
the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead of them
so you aren't caught up in the charge.

ASLs (advanced stop lines) are a good idea, but you can often get quite
a bit forward even of the ASL. If it's possible to get through the
junction altogether and on your way safely, better still, do that.

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Fox > wrote:

> I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by 'justifications'
> for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more dangerous to appear
> in an unexpected road position than the proper one. (2) Waiting 'on the
> corner' for the lights to go green means you have to stay in the danger
> zone of the junction for longer than necessary, and you end up squeezed on
> the other side.
>
> Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the front of the
> queue is justified could explain.

i think it's for most part at least around here, (being greater london)
is not wanting to stop, than any safty thoughts.

do get folk doing the forward of the stopline, to get forward of the
traffic, thus the idea being they can get ahead of snarling cars etc, in
pratice they get caught half way across in most cases where the cars
have built up speed and then pass rather close...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Roger Merriman]

Ben C > wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Peter Fox > wrote:
> > I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by
> > 'justifications' for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more
> > dangerous to appear in an unexpected road position than the proper
> > one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for the lights to go green means you
> > have to stay in the danger zone of the junction for longer than
> > necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.
> >
> > Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the
> > front of the queue is justified could explain.
>
> It gets you out of the way of all the cars. If you sit there and wait
> for the lights to go green in the middle of the queue you're wobbling
> off trying to clip your feet into the pedals while surrounded by
> everyone charging off and possibly turning across you.
>
> Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a grand
> prix.
>
> In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out of the
> way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit as they
> turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
>
> The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well clear of
> the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead of them
> so you aren't caught up in the charge.
>
> ASLs (advanced stop lines) are a good idea, but you can often get quite
> a bit forward even of the ASL. If it's possible to get through the
> junction altogether and on your way safely, better still, do that.

or just use flats? potting away from the lights i tend to leave the
blokes cliping in.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Brian G]

Ben C wrote:

>
> Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a grand
> prix.
>
> In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out of the
> way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit as they
> turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
>
> The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well clear of
> the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead of them
> so you aren't caught up in the charge.
>


I can only assume this is a major city thing, or a south Britain thing.
Here in Scotland I can't recall ever having a problem taking and
keeping my place in the queue at traffic lights. A bicycle is quite
fast enough from a standing start to keep its place until well through
the lights by which time normal lane positioning and overtaking can
proceed. I suppose this may not be the case where lights are set to
long phases, ie, where a bicycle might be a couple of dozen places back
in the queue, but most of our local lights permit the passage of only a
dozen or so vehicles.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:39:02 +0100 someone who may be
(Roger Merriman) wrote this:-

>do get folk doing the forward of the stopline, to get forward of the
>traffic, thus the idea being they can get ahead of snarling cars etc, in
>pratice they get caught half way across in most cases where the cars
>have built up speed and then pass rather close...

Bad road positioning. They should remain in the primary position
until they are at least across the junction. At that point the
position to adopt depends on conditions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Terry]

In article >,
(Brian G) wrote:

> Ben C wrote:
>
> >
> > Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> > dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a
> > grand prix.
> >
> > In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out
> > of the
> > way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit
> > as they
> > turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
> >
> > The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well
> > clear of
> > the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead
> > of them
> > so you aren't caught up in the charge.
> >
>
>
> I can only assume this is a major city thing, or a south Britain
> thing.

It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a cyclist in
order to get to a red light first.

> Here in Scotland I can't recall ever having a problem
> taking and keeping my place in the queue at traffic lights. A
> bicycle is quite fast enough from a standing start to keep its
> place until well through the lights by which time normal lane
> positioning and overtaking can proceed. I suppose this may not be
> the case where lights are set to long phases, ie, where a bicycle
> might be a couple of dozen places back in the queue, but most of
> our local lights permit the passage of only a dozen or so vehicles.

[Roger Merriman]

David Hansen > wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:39:02 +0100 someone who may be
> (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
> >do get folk doing the forward of the stopline, to get forward of the
> >traffic, thus the idea being they can get ahead of snarling cars etc, in
> >pratice they get caught half way across in most cases where the cars
> >have built up speed and then pass rather close...
>
> Bad road positioning. They should remain in the primary position
> until they are at least across the junction. At that point the
> position to adopt depends on conditions.

well yes this normally isn't people who know what they are doing.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[JNugent[_4_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law and not
>> trying to queue-jump.

> Can you quote the law which says that cyclists may not filter?

You're up to your usual trick of selective snipping in a futile attempt
to change the focus, I see.

The correct context here is that *you* had written:

"My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
stop line."

[That's against the law (not that you need me to tell you that, since
you are a qualified instructor, apparently). The fact that it's against
the law appears to cause you no problems.]

Someone else (Rob Morley) wrote:

"How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?"

I added:

"It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law *and* not
trying to queue-jump". [That's my emphasis this time round.]

Have you seen where you went wrong yet?

[JNugent[_4_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:43:08 +0100, Rob Morley >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:00:50 +0100
>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>
>>> My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
>>> with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
>>> vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
>>> stop line.
>>>
>>> However, better than that is not to find themselves in that position
>>> in the first place and take primary position on the road approaching
>>> red lights - that takes confidence and experience and is not always
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Consider a single carriageway 2 lane road with a constant stream of
>>> traffic moving at about 40mph. The cyclist is in secondary position
>>> approaching lights on green and there is no opportunity to move into
>>> primary position with traffic passing at 25mph faster than the
>>> cyclist. As the cyclist arrives at the lights they turn red, so the
>>> cyclist stops at the stop line. A car and a van trundle through the
>>> lights, as they so often do, and a cement mixer pulls alongside. The
>>> cyclist is trapped unles he moves forward, ahead of the truck, and
>>> gains eye contact with the truck driver.
>> How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
>> the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?
>
> Perhaps it would be better if drivers were fined for overtaking or
> pulling alongside cyclists when lights are amber or red.

Why should that happen? It's not illegal.

> Likewise, I think that it would be an excellent idea if drivers were
> fined for obstructing pedestrian crossings on red, as they so often do
> in queuing traffic.

That *is* an offence (unlike your previous suggestion).

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:32:03 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>
>>> It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law and not
>>> trying to queue-jump.
>
>> Can you quote the law which says that cyclists may not filter?
>
>You're up to your usual trick of selective snipping in a futile attempt
>to change the focus, I see.
>
>The correct context here is that *you* had written:
>
>"My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
>with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
>vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
>stop line."
>
>[That's against the law (not that you need me to tell you that, since
>you are a qualified instructor, apparently). The fact that it's against
>the law appears to cause you no problems.]

Read up on the death of Emma Foa, killed by Michael Thorn. Had Emma
Foa moved forward of the stop line, tried to get eye contact with
Michael Thorn, only to find him with his head burried in cab
paperwork, she may have been able to shout a warning.

If breaking the law saves your life then it's a wise to break the law.

>Someone else (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
>"How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
>the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?"
>
>I added:
>
>"It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law *and* not
>trying to queue-jump". [That's my emphasis this time round.]
>
>Have you seen where you went wrong yet?

I responded to the implication in what you wrote that filtering is
against the law.

[Ben C]

On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brian G) wrote:
>
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
>> > dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a
>> > grand prix.
>> >
>> > In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out
>> > of the
>> > way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit
>> > as they
>> > turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
>> >
>> > The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well
>> > clear of
>> > the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead
>> > of them
>> > so you aren't caught up in the charge.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I can only assume this is a major city thing, or a south Britain
>> thing.
>
> It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
> consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a cyclist in
> order to get to a red light first.

But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the traffic on
a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe, obviously, as I
said)?

You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who loses?

[Terry]

In article >,
(Ben C) wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > (Brian G) wrote:
> >
> >> Ben C wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> >> > dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a
> >> > grand prix.
> >> >
> >> > In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out >
>> > of the way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb
> >> > a bit as they turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
> >> >
> >> > The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well
> >> > clear of the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good
> >> > time ahead of them so you aren't caught up in the charge.
> >> >
> >> I can only assume this is a major city thing, or a south Britain
> >> thing.
> >
> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a
> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
>
> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
> obviously, as I said)?
>
> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
> loses?

Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
as reckless lawless irritants.

I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
central London. I also stop at red lights, as required by law.

After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?

[Martin[_2_]]

Peter Fox wrote:
> I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by 'justifications'
> for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more dangerous to appear
> in an unexpected road position than the proper one. (2) Waiting 'on the
> corner' for the lights to go green means you have to stay in the danger
> zone of the junction for longer than necessary, and you end up squeezed
> on the other side.

The real reason for RLJing is to save energy. I get frustrated sometimes
when I have just got up to speed, and the lights in front change to red.
I do not however jump red lights.

> Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the front
> of the queue is justified could explain.

The idea is that it improves the visibility of yourself. This is
especially true if the there are large buses and lorries trying to share
the lane with you. If e.g. a lorry pulls up next to me as I am
approaching the red light, I will invariably try and filter forwards.

The government and local authorities actively encourage filtering and
moving to the front of the queue with ASLs and filter lanes. When this
type of behaviour is encouraged at some junctions, many people will
repeat it at junctions where ASLs and filter lanes don't exist.

[Martin[_2_]]

Roger Merriman wrote:

>> ASLs (advanced stop lines) are a good idea, but you can often get quite
>> a bit forward even of the ASL. If it's possible to get through the
>> junction altogether and on your way safely, better still, do that.
>
> or just use flats? potting away from the lights i tend to leave the
> blokes cliping in.

I find I can't put the power in with flats that I can with SPDs. When
pulling away from lights, I often don't clip in the left SPD for the
first few turns of the pedals, and by the time I have clipped in, I am
still going faster than if I was using flats.

When I was using flats last week, I kept trying to unclip as I slowed down.

[Martin[_2_]]

Terry wrote:
> In article >,
> (Ben C) wrote:

>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>> obviously, as I said)?
>>
>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
>> loses?
>
> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
> central London. I also stop at red lights, as required by law.

me to </aol>

I hate it when I stop at a red light, and someone passes me and jumps
the red light, be that a cyclist or motorist.

Also jumping red lights often puts pedestrians crossing the road at risk.

[Roger Merriman]

Martin > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> >> ASLs (advanced stop lines) are a good idea, but you can often get quite
> >> a bit forward even of the ASL. If it's possible to get through the
> >> junction altogether and on your way safely, better still, do that.
> >
> > or just use flats? potting away from the lights i tend to leave the
> > blokes cliping in.
>
> I find I can't put the power in with flats that I can with SPDs. When
> pulling away from lights, I often don't clip in the left SPD for the
> first few turns of the pedals, and by the time I have clipped in, I am
> still going faster than if I was using flats.
>
there are flats and flats, while proper spikey stuff like DMR v8/12 etc
would be over the top, not to mention looking more than a tad odd on a
racer, flats with some bite should stick to your shoes, tradional road
ones doesn't tend to.

> When I was using flats last week, I kept trying to unclip as I slowed down.

oddly i don't have problems switching between bikes and flats/clipless i
haven't even had my first comedy can't get my foot down moment yet...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Ben C]

On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> In article >,
> (Ben C) wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
[...]
>> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
>> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a
>> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
>>
>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>> obviously, as I said)?
>>
>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
>> loses?
>
> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> as reckless lawless irritants.

Only by idiots.

> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
> central London.

Filtering is a lot safer, and as far as I know not illegal. RLJing is
safer in some circumstances.

> I also stop at red lights, as required by law.

Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint.

> After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
> doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?

In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law and all
that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.

After all everyone speeds.

[Terry]

In article >,
(Ben C) wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Ben C) wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> [...]
> >> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
> >> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a
> >> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
> >>
> >> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
> >> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
> >> obviously, as I said)?
> >>
> >> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker.
> >> Who loses?
> >
> > Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the
> > same brush as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> Only by idiots.

Idiots in big heavy metal projectiles!

> > After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop
> > anyone else doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?
>
> In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law
> and all that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.

I have heard this before - proceeding against a red light as a safety
measure - from someone I respect, but I see many cyclists ignoring red
lights on my daily commute and very few seem to be carefully considering
the situation before proceeding as a safety measure. Most appear to be
blithely ignoring the lights, especially the arrogant few who go on to
ring their little bells imperiously as they barge through pedestrians.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Ben C" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Ben C) wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> [...]
>>> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
>>> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a
>>> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
>>>
>>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
>>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>>> obviously, as I said)?
>>>
>>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
>>> loses?
>>
>> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
>> as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> Only by idiots.

The intelligence level of those who think that is irrelevant. Why reinforce
the stereotype?

>
>> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
>> central London.
>
> Filtering is a lot safer, and as far as I know not illegal. RLJing is
> safer in some circumstances.
>
>> I also stop at red lights, as required by law.
>
> Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint.
>
>> After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
>> doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?
>
> In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law and all
> that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.
>
> After all everyone speeds.

The Tu Quoque fallacy rears it's ugly head again.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Martin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The real reason for RLJing is to save energy. I get frustrated sometimes
> when I have just got up to speed, and the lights in front change to red.
> I do not however jump red lights.
>

I sympathise. There are some near me where if you are more than 100 yards
away when they change from red to green you will not get through before they
change back to red.

[JNugent[_4_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:

>>>> It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law and not
>>>> trying to queue-jump.

>>> Can you quote the law which says that cyclists may not filter?

>> You're up to your usual trick of selective snipping in a futile attempt
>> to change the focus, I see.
>> The correct context here is that *you* had written:

>> "My advice to someone who finds themselves on the left at red lights
>> with a large vehicle alongside would be to move well forward of the
>> vehicle so they can be clearly seen, even if that means crossing the
>> stop line."

>> [That's against the law (not that you need me to tell you that, since
>> you are a qualified instructor, apparently). The fact that it's against
>> the law appears to cause you no problems.]

> Read up on the death of Emma Foa, killed by Michael Thorn. Had Emma
> Foa moved forward of the stop line, tried to get eye contact with
> Michael Thorn, only to find him with his head burried in cab
> paperwork, she may have been able to shout a warning.

I am as familiar with that case as it is possible for a recipient of
news coverage (and observer of discussion) to be. It was well-covered.

> If breaking the law saves your life then it's a wise to break the law.

"Saves your life" or "May, in certain circumstances, when there's an R
in the month, save your life"?

See the difference?

>> Someone else (Rob Morley) wrote:

>> "How about this - light goes amber, cyclist stops a few lengths /before/
>> the line, then filters or waits depending on traffic conditions?"

>> I added:

>> "It'll never catch on because it means complying with the law *and* not
>> trying to queue-jump". [That's my emphasis this time round.]

>> Have you seen where you went wrong yet?

> I responded to the implication in what you wrote that filtering is
> against the law.

There was no such implication. I clearly distinguished the illegal act
from the merely impolite one. It's not my fault that you didn't see that
(or pretended not to).

[JNugent[_4_]]

Martin wrote:
>
> Peter Fox wrote:
>> I'm a NS qualified instructor and am always baffled by
>> 'justifications' for going through red lights. (1) It is surely more
>> dangerous to appear in an unexpected road position than the proper
>> one. (2) Waiting 'on the corner' for the lights to go green means you
>> have to stay in the danger zone of the junction for longer than
>> necessary, and you end up squeezed on the other side.
>
> The real reason for RLJing is to save energy. I get frustrated sometimes
> when I have just got up to speed, and the lights in front change to red.

Snap.

Except that I am usually in a car (sometimes on foot, rarely on a bike -
mainly because there are traffic lights within several miles of my home).

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:43:34 +0100 someone who may be Martin
> wrote this:-

>The real reason for RLJing is to save energy. I get frustrated sometimes
>when I have just got up to speed, and the lights in front change to red.

There are several sets of traffic lights in "bike friendly"
Edinburgh where someone cycling will be stopped at every set of
lights, while motorists will not. However, that doesn't mean that I
see the cyclists ignoring these lights very often.

>The government and local authorities actively encourage filtering and
>moving to the front of the queue with ASLs and filter lanes. When this
>type of behaviour is encouraged at some junctions, many people will
>repeat it at junctions where ASLs and filter lanes don't exist.

And the cyclist who doesn't know the route has no idea whether there
is an ASL at the front or not.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Ekul Namsob]

Ben C > wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Ben C) wrote:

> >> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
> >> loses?
> >
> > Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> > as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> Only by idiots.

Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause cyclists
difficulties on the road.
>
> > I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
> > central London.
>
> Filtering is a lot safer, and as far as I know not illegal. RLJing is
> safer in some circumstances.
>
> > I also stop at red lights, as required by law.
>
> Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint.
>
> > After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
> > doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?
>
> In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law and all
> that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.

Really?

> After all everyone speeds.

No, they don't. You might. Many or all of your friends might. But I
certainly don't.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ekul Namsob]

Ben C > wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Peter Fox > wrote:

> > Perhaps someone who claims RLJ and waiting in the junction at the
> > front of the queue is justified could explain.
>
> It gets you out of the way of all the cars. If you sit there and wait
> for the lights to go green in the middle of the queue you're wobbling
> off trying to clip your feet into the pedals while surrounded by
> everyone charging off and possibly turning across you.
>
> Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a grand
> prix.

It's a road. Not a race track.

Adopt primary position before the lights, remain in primary position
until it is safe to move into secondary position. There is no need to
jump red lights.

It is no more than a bad excuse for crap cycling.
>
> In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out of the
> way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb a bit as they
> turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.

And that's a good reason to be in primary position.
>
> The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well clear of
> the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good time ahead of them
> so you aren't caught up in the charge.

Not at all.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:19:19 +0100
(Roger Merriman) wrote:

> there are flats and flats, while proper spikey stuff like DMR v8/12
> etc would be over the top, not to mention looking more than a tad odd
> on a racer, flats with some bite should stick to your shoes,
> tradional road ones doesn't tend to.
>
I switched from clips to V8-style (proper ones with replaceable steel
pegs) on my ATB and was surprised how secure they feel. Obviously you
can't pull /up/ on them, but I do seem to be able to use more of the
pedal stroke for useful work. I've considered putting some on my road
bike (I don't use cleated shoes any more, and hesitate to try clipless
pedals, because the ligaments in my right knee are totally knackered
and the tracking in that leg is all wrong).

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:20:48 -0500
Ben C > wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Terry > wrote:

> > Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same
> > brush as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> Only by idiots.
>
In case you hadn't noticed, the populace at large doesn't seem to shine
in the intellectual ability stakes, and I don't hold out too much hope
for "common sense" either.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:59:46 +0100
David Hansen > wrote:

> Bad road positioning. They should remain in the primary position
> until they are at least across the junction. At that point the
> position to adopt depends on conditions.
>
There's a light controlled junction just around the corner where often
I effectively ride on the pavement (i.e. where it would be if the
junction wasn't there) - there's plenty of room for a couple of cars to
get past before I slot back into primary position on the other side. I
don't think I've ever had a problem doing it that way.

[lardyninja]

Ekul Namsob wrote, On 07/07/2008 11:56:
>>> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
>>> as reckless lawless irritants.
>> Only by idiots.
>
> Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause cyclists
> difficulties on the road.


I'm not convinced that would just stop even if all cyclists stopped
riding on pavements and jumping the lights.

LN

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:31 +0100 someone who may be
(Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-

>Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause cyclists
>difficulties on the road.

And these idiots are the ones inside several hundred kilogrammes of
hard shell, which means they are the ones who bring the most danger
to the situation when they ignore red lights.

While looking up something else I came across
<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435942-details/Cyclist%20Charlotte%20killed%20by%20driver%20who%2 0jumped%20red%20light/article.do?expand=true#StartComments>

"A mother has told how her cyclist daughter was killed by a driver
who sped through a red light. [snip]

"Smith, 24, was travelling at 45mph in her Smart car, with two
teenagers crammed in the back, when she hit Miss Morse in Talgarth
Road, Hammersmith, in October 2006.

"Charity worker Charlotte, who lived in Acton, hit the windscreen
before being thrown onto the road. She was pronounced dead at the
scene by an air ambulance doctor. [snip]

"Juliet Morse said: "This woman was driving recklessly and my
daughter died because of that. If she had been driving at 30mph and
paying attention then Charlotte would probably still be alive today.
[snip]

"Smith, of Brentford, was an instructor of Army cadets and was
driving with two teenage cadets at the time of the accident.

"She failed to stop at the red light at the junction with Gliddon
Road before she hit Miss Morse.

"When she was interviewed by police she insisted the light was
green. But witnesses said that it had been red for at least 20
seconds when she went through."


Of course if one were to believe the usual suspects it is only
cyclists who ignore red lights, so this death must be a fantasy.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Terry]

In article >,
(David Hansen) wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:31 +0100 someone who may be
> (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-
>
> >Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause
> cyclists difficulties on the road.
>
> And these idiots are the ones inside several hundred kilogrammes of
> hard shell, which means they are the ones who bring the most danger
> to the situation when they ignore red lights.
>
> While looking up something else I came across
> <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435942-details/Cyc
> list%20Charlotte%20killed%20by%20driver%20who%20ju mped%20red%20light
> /article.do?expand=true#StartComments>
>
> "A mother has told how her cyclist daughter was killed by a driver
> who sped through a red light. [snip]

It's indisputable that motorists also shoot red lights and that the
consequences can be fatal, but raising it in a thread about cyclists
shooting lights risks being perceived as trying to minimise one wrong by
directing attention to another, even if that was not your intention.

It also invites others to introduce stories of cyclists who have caused a
death and ultimately obfuscates the simple fact that red lights apply to
cyclists as well as motor vehicles, and that ignoring them, no matter how
good the excuse seems, is illegal and anti-social.

[Ekul Namsob]

lardyninja > wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote, On 07/07/2008 11:56:
> >>> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> >>> as reckless lawless irritants.
> >> Only by idiots.
> >
> > Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause cyclists
> > difficulties on the road.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that would just stop even if all cyclists stopped
> riding on pavements and jumping the lights.

Certainly it would not. However, the idiots don't need encouragement.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ekul Namsob]

David Hansen > wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:31 +0100 someone who may be
> (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-
>
> >Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause cyclists
> >difficulties on the road.
>
> And these idiots are the ones inside several hundred kilogrammes of
> hard shell, which means they are the ones who bring the most danger
> to the situation when they ignore red lights.

Quite. I stop at lights because the law says I should and because I
believe I'm safer doing so. Cyclists, as a rule, risk their own lives by
running lights when cycling.

> While looking up something else I came across

<snip>

> "Smith, of Brentford, was an instructor of Army cadets and was
> driving with two teenage cadets at the time of the accident.
>
> "She failed to stop at the red light at the junction with Gliddon
> Road before she hit Miss Morse.
>
> "When she was interviewed by police she insisted the light was
> green. But witnesses said that it had been red for at least 20
> seconds when she went through."
>
>
> Of course if one were to believe the usual suspects it is only
> cyclists who ignore red lights, so this death must be a fantasy.

I'm regularly overtaken at red lights by cyclists in motor cars. :-)

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ekul Namsob]

Terry > wrote:

> In article >,
> (David Hansen) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:31 +0100 someone who may be
> > (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-
> >
> > >Indeed. Sadly, those idiots are exactly the people who cause
> > cyclists difficulties on the road.
> >
> > And these idiots are the ones inside several hundred kilogrammes of
> > hard shell, which means they are the ones who bring the most danger
> > to the situation when they ignore red lights.
> >
> > While looking up something else I came across
> > <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435942-details/Cyc
> > list%20Charlotte%20killed%20by%20driver%20who%20ju mped%20red%20light
> > /article.do?expand=true#StartComments>
> >
> > "A mother has told how her cyclist daughter was killed by a driver
> > who sped through a red light. [snip]
>
> It's indisputable that motorists also shoot red lights and that the
> consequences can be fatal, but raising it in a thread about cyclists
> shooting lights risks being perceived as trying to minimise one wrong by
> directing attention to another, even if that was not your intention.

Try reading the posts that led up to David's post.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Terry]

In article <1ijs163.k0r6drpx7qg5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wr onghead.com>
, (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> Try reading the posts that led up to David's post.

Thanks for your advice. May I call on your services in future should I
feel the need to be patronised by someone with a short attention span?

[Roger Merriman]

Rob Morley > wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:19:19 +0100
> (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> > there are flats and flats, while proper spikey stuff like DMR v8/12
> > etc would be over the top, not to mention looking more than a tad odd
> > on a racer, flats with some bite should stick to your shoes,
> > tradional road ones doesn't tend to.
> >
> I switched from clips to V8-style (proper ones with replaceable steel
> pegs) on my ATB and was surprised how secure they feel. Obviously you
> can't pull /up/ on them, but I do seem to be able to use more of the
> pedal stroke for useful work. I've considered putting some on my road
> bike (I don't use cleated shoes any more, and hesitate to try clipless
> pedals, because the ligaments in my right knee are totally knackered
> and the tracking in that leg is all wrong).

i certinaly notice, partically when wet how little grip old road pedals
and cheap bear trap types have. i keep meaning to fit some proper pedals
to the about town bike which would make riding in the wet less of a
hassel.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Ekul Namsob]

Terry > wrote:

> In article <1ijs163.k0r6drpx7qg5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wr onghead.com>
> , (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> > Try reading the posts that led up to David's post.
>
> Thanks for your advice. May I call on your services in future should I
> feel the need to be patronised by someone with a short attention span?

I don't have a short attention span but I'm happy to patronise you when
you wish to demonstrate the brevity of your own.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Terry]

In article
<1ijtne3.y3clpz1lk2ad5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com>,
(Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> I don't have a short attention span

Your gratuitously crass comment said otherwise.

[Ekul Namsob]

Terry > wrote:

> In article
> <1ijtne3.y3clpz1lk2ad5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com>,
> (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> > I don't have a short attention span
>
> Your gratuitously crass comment said otherwise.

You really need to learn how to read.

Ta,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Terry]

In article <1ijyobh.ies18fqa7v0wN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wr onghead.com>
, (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> Terry > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1ijtne3.y3clpz1lk2ad5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com>,
> > (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have a short attention span
> >
> > Your gratuitously crass comment said otherwise.
>
> You really need to learn how to read.

Oh! Cutting riposte. I am so crushed.

I've only posted here infrequently but I'm often astonished by the
debating skills of my cycling brethren. Give yourself a pat on the back
Mister Bosman, you're an example to us all.

[Digiman]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:34 +0100 (BST), (Terry)
wrote:

>In article <1ijyobh.ies18fqa7v0wN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wr onghead.com>
>, (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
>> Terry > wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <1ijtne3.y3clpz1lk2ad5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com>,
>> > (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't have a short attention span
>> >
>> > Your gratuitously crass comment said otherwise.
>>
>> You really need to learn how to read.
>
>Oh! Cutting riposte. I am so crushed.
>
>I've only posted here infrequently

Thank goodness!

> but I'm often astonished by the
>debating skills of my cycling brethren.

Since you seem to be something of an incipient troll you probably don't.

Luke invited you to read the posts further back in the thread so that
you could see how your (otherwise completely reasonable) post was not
relevant.

And then you start off on one of your silly crusades.

[Terry]

In article >,
(Digiman) wrote:

> Since you seem to be something of an incipient troll

And that explains why you've taken to following me around?

[Digiman]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:36 +0100 (BST), (Terry)
wrote:

>In article >,
>(Digiman) wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to be something of an incipient troll
>
>And that explains why you've taken to following me around?

No.

I just happend to be reading new posts and noticed you'd started
trolling here.

Admittedly after making a perfectly sensible post that just didn't
happen to be relevant in context.

[Ekul Namsob]

Terry > wrote:

> In article <1ijyobh.ies18fqa7v0wN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wr onghead.com>
> , (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> > Terry > wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1ijtne3.y3clpz1lk2ad5N%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@w ronghead.com>,
> > > (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't have a short attention span
> > >
> > > Your gratuitously crass comment said otherwise.
> >
> > You really need to learn how to read.
>
> Oh! Cutting riposte. I am so crushed.

It's not meant to be cutting, but if you could demonstrate how it is not
based in fact then I shall apologise unreservedly.
>
> I've only posted here infrequently but I'm often astonished by the
> debating skills of my cycling brethren. Give yourself a pat on the back
> Mister Bosman, you're an example to us all.

It's a pleasure.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>