Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:02:34 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote: On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote: The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether they should be there or not. Give Way to 'em, in other words... No, "give way to" is not synonymous with "don't drive into". If somone is across the line but not blocking your path there is no obligation for you to stop and let them cross. -- Ian D |
Routemasters (again)
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:55:47 -0400, "Truebrit"
wrote: "Truebrit" wrote: Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the lights are in the opposite sequence and are going from green to amber Judith" wrote: Oh dear : not bright. Indeed. :-) Proof reading never was one of my fortes. Of course the second line should read from amber to green. I did correct it in a later post. Truebrit. They never go from amber to green. -- Ian D |
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, "NY" wrote:
snip Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver. Spot on - and same here. Unfortunately we seem to be in a minority which is getting smaller. |
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, NY wrote: It was scary to watch the 5th (last) episode of Route Masters (about London's roads) on BBC1 a couple of weeks ago and see how cyclists seem to think that the road laws should treat them differently from engine-powered vehicles. Of course they shouldn't. Everybody should stick to the HC. Cyclists were weaving in and out of other traffic, overtaking first one one side then on the other, right in front of the eyes of police officers Umm, yes, and? Care to tell us which HC rules that's inherently breaking? Oh - so you think that that sort of action is OK do you? Many thanks - you have confirmed the point which NY was making. 68 You MUST NOT * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner |
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:08:14 +0100, Judith wrote:
Cyclists were weaving in and out of other traffic, overtaking first one one side then on the other, right in front of the eyes of police officers Umm, yes, and? Care to tell us which HC rules that's inherently breaking? Oh - so you think that that sort of action is OK do you? I haven't seen the programme. But you'll note I explicitly asked "inherently". Many thanks - you have confirmed the point which NY was making. 68 You MUST NOT * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner "Weaving in and out" and "overtaking first one side then the other" are not _inherently_ dangerous, careless or inconsiderate. They _can_ be, sure. But they aren't inherently. ****, but just riding in a straight line _can_ be dangerous, careless and/ or inconsiderate. |
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote: The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether they should be there or not. Give Way to 'em, in other words... Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all. |
Routemasters (again)
In message , Nick Finnigan
writes On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote: On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote: The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether they should be there or not. Give Way to 'em, in other words... Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all. Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green means you may go on if the way is clear"? -- Ian |
Routemasters (again)
Give Way to 'em, in other words... No, "give way to" is not synonymous with "don't drive into". If somone is across the line but not blocking your path there is no obligation for you to stop and let them cross. I would interpret "give way to pedestrians who are crossing" (under the explanation of green in the link provided by adrian) to mean that there is an obligation for the driver to stop and let them cross. In fact I think I was taught that you should not drive trough a pedestrian crossing until all pedestrians had finished crossing, but maybe that was zebras. |
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 12:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green means you may go on if the way is clear"? Because it is a tautology. |
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 12:02, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, "NY" wrote: snip Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver. Spot on - and same here. Unfortunately we seem to be in a minority which is getting smaller. Do either of you ride in bus /cycle lanes then? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com