|
|
Routemasters (again)
"Paul George" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 17:15:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: Dip your toe into uk.rec.cycling if you care to have your opinions reinforced. Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) |
Routemasters (again)
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper"
wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". |
Routemasters (again)
In article , Thumper
writes Dip your toe into uk.rec.cycling if you care to have your opinions reinforced. Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, all for the good of future personkind, mankind really, but I'm in a PC mood tonight. Mike -- Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners. Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians. Yorkshire Halvard Lange |
Routemasters (again)
On 26/07/2013 00:04, Baker wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". Would you have a mate called Charlie? |
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:23:53 +0100, Michael Swift wrote:
In article , Thumper writes Dip your toe into uk.rec.cycling if you care to have your opinions reinforced. Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, all for the good of future personkind, mankind really, but I'm in a PC mood tonight. Mike I am glad you said "most" |
Routemasters (again)
"Michael Swift" wrote in message
... In article , Thumper writes Dip your toe into uk.rec.cycling if you care to have your opinions reinforced. Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, Don't the Lycra shorts do that anyway? -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God." |
Routemasters (again)
On 26/07/2013 09:56, GordonD wrote:
I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, Don't the Lycra shorts do that anyway? Yep. That's what I always told your missus. |
Routemasters (again)
In article , Peter Keller
writes I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, all for the good of future personkind, mankind really, but I'm in a PC mood tonight. Mike I am glad you said "most" My son was a keen cyclist, not the Lycra shorts type as he didn't have the legs, but then who does, and even he had his arrogant moments banging on car roofs when he thought they had cut him up and to be fair some of the car drivers should be off the road as well. I always try and give cyclists a wide berth, if I can't I wait until I can pass then safely, but then I'm not the sort of driver who must save 5 seconds delay or their life will end. I'm sure there are good cyclists out there but sadly I've seen many who aren't, hence the most. Mike -- Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners. Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians. Yorkshire Halvard Lange |
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:37:34 +0100, Clive George
wrote: It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". Would you have a mate called Charlie? Tell you what - I'll skip the F, you can have it. ****wit. |
Routemasters (again)
"Baker" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". What is the TDF? |
Routemasters (again)
Thumper wrote:
"Baker" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". What is the TDF? Sacre Bleu! |
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:21:24 +0100, Michael Swift wrote:
In article , Peter Keller writes I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, all for the good of future personkind, mankind really, but I'm in a PC mood tonight. Mike I am glad you said "most" My son was a keen cyclist, not the Lycra shorts type as he didn't have the legs, but then who does, and even he had his arrogant moments banging on car roofs when he thought they had cut him up and to be fair some of the car drivers should be off the road as well. I always try and give cyclists a wide berth, if I can't I wait until I can pass then safely, but then I'm not the sort of driver who must save 5 seconds delay or their life will end. I'm sure there are good cyclists out there but sadly I've seen many who aren't, hence the most. Mike I use a bike for most of my urban transport needs, and am also allergic to being knocked off, involved in accidents or otherwise squished. I also have no particular interest in "riling up" non-bike riders, so I try to be visible and predictable, signal and use the bell a lot, stop before hitting someone or something, take the lane when necessary for safety but as soon as possible afterwards pull over to let other traffic pass, etc etc. |
Routemasters (again)
On 27/07/2013 08:34, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:21:24 +0100, Michael Swift wrote: In article , Peter Keller writes I read uk.legal and there are cross posts from uk.rec.cycling, they don't alter my opinion that most cyclists are total retards who should be put down so they can't breed, all for the good of future personkind, mankind really, but I'm in a PC mood tonight. Mike I am glad you said "most" My son was a keen cyclist, not the Lycra shorts type as he didn't have the legs, but then who does, and even he had his arrogant moments banging on car roofs when he thought they had cut him up and to be fair some of the car drivers should be off the road as well. I always try and give cyclists a wide berth, if I can't I wait until I can pass then safely, but then I'm not the sort of driver who must save 5 seconds delay or their life will end. I'm sure there are good cyclists out there but sadly I've seen many who aren't, hence the most. Mike I use a bike for most of my urban transport needs, and am also allergic to being knocked off, involved in accidents or otherwise squished. I also have no particular interest in "riling up" non-bike riders, so I try to be visible and predictable, signal and use the bell a lot, stop before hitting someone or something, take the lane when necessary for safety but as soon as possible afterwards pull over to let other traffic pass, etc etc. Sounds very reasonable and I'm sure that other reasonable road users don't expect two vehicles to fit side by side through a space wide eniough for only one. |
Routemasters (again)
"JNugent" wrote in message
... I use a bike for most of my urban transport needs, and am also allergic to being knocked off, involved in accidents or otherwise squished. I also have no particular interest in "riling up" non-bike riders, so I try to be visible and predictable, signal and use the bell a lot, stop before hitting someone or something, take the lane when necessary for safety but as soon as possible afterwards pull over to let other traffic pass, etc etc. Sounds very reasonable and I'm sure that other reasonable road users don't expect two vehicles to fit side by side through a space wide eniough for only one. I cycle as if were a human-powered car, in that I obey all the rules that I would obey if I was driving and as if I were subject to the same penalties for disobeying those rules. I will normally keep as far left as I can without riding into drain covers or being at risk of veering into the kerb if I'm blown by passing cars or if my handlebars twitch slightly. I go a lot slower than cars except when they are crawling along in a queue, so it's only courteous that I try to make it as easy for cars to overtake me, without endangering/inconveniencing myself. I NEVER EVER EVER overtake a vehicle on either side if it is indicating to turn in that direction. I never overtake vehicles on the left on the approach to a junction where those vehicles may turn left, even if no-one is indicating to turn. I am also reluctant to overtake on the left at other times because it would take me down a narrow gap between the LHS of the vehicle and the kerb, with the risk of veering either into the car or the kerb. Normally if I am in a queue of cars, I will wait patiently, just as I would if I was driving a car. I may dismount and walk along the pavement if a) I can see that the pavement is sufficiently clear of people that myself and the bike alongside me won't get in their way, and b) I can see where there is a space for me to rejoin the road further ahead. I may overtake on the RHS of the queue of cars if there is plenty of space (eg there are no oncoming cars because they are held at traffic lights). But normally I will wait. I will wait in a position where I am visible to the cars behind me and (via their rear-view mirrors) the cars ahead. Usually this means being half way between the LHS and RHS of the cars. When traffic starts to move, I remain in this position whilst traffic is moving slowly enough for me to be able to keep up with it. When the car ahead starts to draw away from me, I move back to the left and expect cars to start overtaking me. I ALWAYS ALWAYS obey traffic lights and zebra crossings because they apply to me as much as to other road users. I am even more alert to the possibility of a green traffic light turning amber and red than I would be when driving, because the fact that I am going slower means that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber. |
Routemasters (again)
NY wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... I use a bike for most of my urban transport needs, and am also allergic to being knocked off, involved in accidents or otherwise squished. I also have no particular interest in "riling up" non-bike riders, so I try to be visible and predictable, signal and use the bell a lot, stop before hitting someone or something, take the lane when necessary for safety but as soon as possible afterwards pull over to let other traffic pass, etc etc. Sounds very reasonable and I'm sure that other reasonable road users don't expect two vehicles to fit side by side through a space wide eniough for only one. I cycle as if were a human-powered car, in that I obey all the rules that I would obey if I was driving and as if I were subject to the same penalties for disobeying those rules. I will normally keep as far left as I can without riding into drain covers or being at risk of veering into the kerb if I'm blown by passing cars or if my handlebars twitch slightly. I go a lot slower than cars except when they are crawling along in a queue, so it's only courteous that I try to make it as easy for cars to overtake me, without endangering/inconveniencing myself. I NEVER EVER EVER overtake a vehicle on either side if it is indicating to turn in that direction. I never overtake vehicles on the left on the approach to a junction where those vehicles may turn left, even if no-one is indicating to turn. I am also reluctant to overtake on the left at other times because it would take me down a narrow gap between the LHS of the vehicle and the kerb, with the risk of veering either into the car or the kerb. Normally if I am in a queue of cars, I will wait patiently, just as I would if I was driving a car. I may dismount and walk along the pavement if a) I can see that the pavement is sufficiently clear of people that myself and the bike alongside me won't get in their way, and b) I can see where there is a space for me to rejoin the road further ahead. I may overtake on the RHS of the queue of cars if there is plenty of space (eg there are no oncoming cars because they are held at traffic lights). But normally I will wait. I will wait in a position where I am visible to the cars behind me and (via their rear-view mirrors) the cars ahead. Usually this means being half way between the LHS and RHS of the cars. When traffic starts to move, I remain in this position whilst traffic is moving slowly enough for me to be able to keep up with it. When the car ahead starts to draw away from me, I move back to the left and expect cars to start overtaking me. I ALWAYS ALWAYS obey traffic lights and zebra crossings because they apply to me as much as to other road users. I am even more alert to the possibility of a green traffic light turning amber and red than I would be when driving, because the fact that I am going slower means that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber. and then I woke up. |
Routemasters (again)
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? |
Routemasters (again)
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:18:16 PM UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? It's MrCheerful. He is like MrNugent. He just KNOWS that all cyclists are malefactors. He's trying to be kind by implying that you are only dreaming. He thinks that you are lying. |
Routemasters (again)
NY wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? I find it hard to believe that you actually ride as described, reading it, makes it sound like a dream. However, I am prepared to believe that there are one, possibly more, sensible and legal cyclists in the UK, and if you are one of the few then I salute you, and I wish there was some way that you could get the message across to the vast bulk of UK cyclists. |
Routemasters (again)
On 27/07/2013 14:03, NY wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... I use a bike for most of my urban transport needs, and am also allergic to being knocked off, involved in accidents or otherwise squished. I also have no particular interest in "riling up" non-bike riders, so I try to be visible and predictable, signal and use the bell a lot, stop before hitting someone or something, take the lane when necessary for safety but as soon as possible afterwards pull over to let other traffic pass, etc etc. Sounds very reasonable and I'm sure that other reasonable road users don't expect two vehicles to fit side by side through a space wide eniough for only one. I cycle as if were a human-powered car, in that I obey all the rules that I would obey if I was driving and as if I were subject to the same penalties for disobeying those rules. I will normally keep as far left as I can without riding into drain covers or being at risk of veering into the kerb if I'm blown by passing cars or if my handlebars twitch slightly. I go a lot slower than cars except when they are crawling along in a queue, so it's only courteous that I try to make it as easy for cars to overtake me, without endangering/inconveniencing myself. I NEVER EVER EVER overtake a vehicle on either side if it is indicating to turn in that direction. I never overtake vehicles on the left on the approach to a junction where those vehicles may turn left, even if no-one is indicating to turn. I am also reluctant to overtake on the left at other times because it would take me down a narrow gap between the LHS of the vehicle and the kerb, with the risk of veering either into the car or the kerb. Normally if I am in a queue of cars, I will wait patiently, just as I would if I was driving a car. I may dismount and walk along the pavement if a) I can see that the pavement is sufficiently clear of people that myself and the bike alongside me won't get in their way, and b) I can see where there is a space for me to rejoin the road further ahead. I may overtake on the RHS of the queue of cars if there is plenty of space (eg there are no oncoming cars because they are held at traffic lights). But normally I will wait. I will wait in a position where I am visible to the cars behind me and (via their rear-view mirrors) the cars ahead. Usually this means being half way between the LHS and RHS of the cars. When traffic starts to move, I remain in this position whilst traffic is moving slowly enough for me to be able to keep up with it. When the car ahead starts to draw away from me, I move back to the left and expect cars to start overtaking me. I ALWAYS ALWAYS obey traffic lights and zebra crossings because they apply to me as much as to other road users. I am even more alert to the possibility of a green traffic light turning amber and red than I would be when driving, because the fact that I am going slower means that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber. I am aware that there are some cyclists about who answer that description. Not many, and certainly not enough, but there are some. |
Routemasters (again)
On 27/07/2013 14:03, NY wrote:
I cycle as if were a human-powered car, in that I obey all the rules that I would obey if I was driving and as if I were subject to the same penalties for disobeying those rules. Registration, VED, MoT, mirrors, lights, seatbelt, helmet, staying out of cycle /bus lanes /advance stop areas ? |
Routemasters (again)
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Thumper wrote: "Baker" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". What is the TDF? Sacre Bleu! Oh yeah, the French race. |
Routemasters (again)
"Thumper" wrote in message
... "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Thumper wrote: "Baker" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". What is the TDF? Sacre Bleu! Oh yeah, the French race. Though it's a while since a Frenchman won it. I mean, this year's winner was born in Kenya and brought up in South Africa, while last year's was born in Belgium. -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God." |
Routemasters (again)
"GordonD" wrote in message ... "Thumper" wrote in message ... "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Thumper wrote: "Baker" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:36:16 +0100, "Thumper" wrote: Are there any cyclists on that group anymore? Last time I checked that former cycling group had turned into a mutual masturbation society for sad lonely trolls. If there are, they're are not taking the bait :-) It's the moderators - my perfectly reasonable follow up on the TDF was rejected due to "probation". What is the TDF? Sacre Bleu! Oh yeah, the French race. Though it's a while since a Frenchman won it. I mean, this year's winner was born in Kenya and brought up in South Africa, while last year's was born in Belgium. at lease the latter spent all of his formative year's here tim |
Routemasters (again)
in message o.uk... "Mr Pounder" wrote in message ... "NY" wrote in message o.uk... "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? "that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber". Do you know what amber means? "NY" wrote: Amber means stop, just as red does. But it is a grace period in which no opposing traffic will yet (legally!) be able to set off. It is present because if the lights change from green to amber when you are very close, you will be unable to stop before the light: if you are closer to the lights that your vehicle's stopping distance at the speed at which you are travelling. Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to stop before the red light. 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 there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their clog down. I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red to green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until the red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after showing the warning amber. Another great traffic mover I find is the practice in Ontario to allow a right turn (left in UK case) on a red light provided you come to a complete stop first and only then proceed when it is safe to do so. Truebrit. |
Routemasters (again)
Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber
light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to stop before the red light. 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 amber to green there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their clog down. I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red to green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until the red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after showing the warning amber. "NY" wrote: There are people who set off on amber instead of waiting for green, although at least the red is also illuminated during this time to send a "stay stopped" message. I wonder whether the amber warning of green was partly included originally to say "time to put move the gear lever from neutral to first (or neutral to drive in the case of automatic)" so people were not left doing this when the light went green - which could lead to rear-end shunts if the car behind is already prepared to set off and doesn't notice/expect that the car in front isn't ready yet. Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. The pedestrian has the right of way in such instances and has a green "walk" sign. As I said the driver can only proceed and make the turn after coming to a FULL stop and only then when it is safe to do so. Truebrit. |
Routemasters (again)
"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. |
Routemasters (again)
NY" wrote in message
Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. "Thumper" wrote: When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds before the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a pedestrian to still be crossing. "Bertie Wooster" wrote: Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously enforced. Truebrit. |
Routemasters (again)
"in message ... "Truebrit" wrote in message ... NY" wrote in message Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. "Thumper" wrote: When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds before the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a pedestrian to still be crossing. "Bertie Wooster" wrote: Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously enforced. Truebrit. tim....." wrote: Where is here? Does you name refer to your location or your birthplace (perhaps)? Brit by birth but lived in Canada for almost 50 years. IME whilst ignoring a red man does constitute jaywalking in the UK, your chances of being "ticketed" for it are somewhat less than negligible. OTHO in the US and Germany it is quite possible. And Canada. Particularly in Toronto and Vancouver. |
Routemasters (again)
"NY" wrote in message o.uk... "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? "that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber". Do you know what amber means? |
Routemasters (again)
"Mr Pounder" wrote in message
... "NY" wrote in message o.uk... "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... NY wrote: [snipped my self-imposed rules for safe but unselfish cycling] and then I woke up. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you don't believe that I abide by these rules, or are you saying that I am wrong to abide by them and that I should be more selfish/assertive? "that it will take longer for me to be clear of the junction if I do happen to go through on amber". Do you know what amber means? Amber means stop, just as red does. But it is a grace period in which no opposing traffic will yet (legally!) be able to set off. It is present because if the lights change from green to amber when you are very close, you will be unable to stop before the light: if you are closer to the lights that your vehicle's stopping distance at the speed at which you are travelling. Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to stop before the red light. |
Routemasters (again)
"Truebrit" wrote in message
... Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to stop before the red light. 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 there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their clog down. I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red to green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until the red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after showing the warning amber. There are people who set off on amber instead of waiting for green, although at least the red is also illuminated during this time to send a "stay stopped" message. I wonder whether the amber warning of green was partly included originally to say "time to put move the gear lever from neutral to first (or neutral to drive in the case of automatic)" so people were not left doing this when the light went green - which could lead to rear-end shunts if the car behind is already prepared to set off and doesn't notice/expect that the car in front isn't ready yet. Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. |
Routemasters (again)
In message , Truebrit
writes Because of this, it is not regarded as an offence to go through an amber light. The amber phase is necessary to make red enforceable because only with it is the road user given sufficient warning that he will be able to stop before the red light. 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 amber to green there are far to many cowboys who look upon that amber light to get their clog down. I much prefer our system here in N America where our lights go from red to green with no amber in between and that green does not appear until the red in the cross direction has been lit for five seconds after showing the warning amber. "NY" wrote: There are people who set off on amber instead of waiting for green, although at least the red is also illuminated during this time to send a "stay stopped" message. I wonder whether the amber warning of green was partly included originally to say "time to put move the gear lever from neutral to first (or neutral to drive in the case of automatic)" so people were not left doing this when the light went green - which could lead to rear-end shunts if the car behind is already prepared to set off and doesn't notice/expect that the car in front isn't ready yet. Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. The pedestrian has the right of way in such instances and has a green "walk" sign. As I said the driver can only proceed and make the turn after coming to a FULL stop and only then when it is safe to do so. Truebrit. "Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps in exchange for our mini-roundabout system). It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of "turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is almost certainly "Yes".] -- Ian |
Routemasters (again)
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:38:53 -0400, "Truebrit" wrote:
snip 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 Oh dear : not bright |
Routemasters (again)
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
... It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of "turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is almost certainly "Yes".] As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have in the Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to traffic that is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with traffic. Almost as absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right rule where traffic on a major road at high speed has to give way to a farm tractor pulling out of a farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that? If we get turn left on red, I'd favour a separate set of lights and filter lane for that traffic, with (for example) flashing amber displayed to say "you may go if it is safe, but you must still give way to traffic and pedestrians - you do not have priority over anyone". The problem with mini roundabout is that they are usually positioned so that everyone, even on what used to be the straight-on major road, has to slow to a crawl to negotiate a VERY tight left-right-left turn to get round the roundabout. I'd prefer it if *all* mini-roundabouts were painted on the road so you could drive across them, taking the line that you would if it was a normal T junction, with the roundabout there solely to establish priority and not to deviate traffic from the normal line that it would take. Oh and I'd like to torture, very very slowly, the person who first thought of speed humps as a way of slowing traffic down ;-) Use speed cameras if you really must, but not a mechanism which penalises everyone (to a greater or lesser extent). All law-enforcement methods should be as invisible as possible to the people who abide by the laws and only affect those who don't. |
Routemasters (again)
In message , NY
writes As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have in the Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to traffic that is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with traffic. Almost as absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right rule where traffic on a major road at high speed has to give way to a farm tractor pulling out of a farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that? I'm not sure if European old-fashioned 'give way to the right' is still used except on the relatively small roads. Most roundabouts are now 'sensible', and those which aren't usually have a sign saying "You do not have priority". However, I still have memories of being a new visitor to Europe, in the early 70s, and being in a car driven at an alarming speed through the grid-iron, narrow cobbled streets in Ostend. I thought the driver was a lunatic, but he explained that all he had to do was to give way to the right when the roads crossed (which they did frequently). If anyone hit HIM from the left, it would be THEIR fault. The system seemed to work. I also recall driving around (several times around!) the Place de la Concorde (Arc de Triumphe) roundabout in Paris. That was (and probably still is) one of the 'Hotel California' roundabouts, where you can enter it any time you like, but you can never leave. -- Ian |
Routemasters (again)
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:13:55 +0100, "NY" wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... It seems that some European now also have a limited implementation of "turn right on red", so can Britain be far behind?. [Correct answer is almost certainly "Yes".] As long as we don't get the STUPID IDIOTIC roundabout rules they have in the Netherlands where traffic on the roundabout has to give way to traffic that is joining, leading to roundabouts getting clogged with traffic. Almost as absurd as France's (former?) priority to the right rule where traffic on a major road at high speed has to give way to a farm tractor pulling out of a farm track. Whose ill-conceived idea was that? If we get turn left on red, I'd favour a separate set of lights and filter lane for that traffic, with (for example) flashing amber displayed to say "you may go if it is safe, but you must still give way to traffic and pedestrians - you do not have priority over anyone". The problem with mini roundabout is that they are usually positioned so that everyone, even on what used to be the straight-on major road, has to slow to a crawl to negotiate a VERY tight left-right-left turn to get round the roundabout. I'd prefer it if *all* mini-roundabouts were painted on the road so you could drive across them, taking the line that you would if it was a normal T junction, with the roundabout there solely to establish priority and not to deviate traffic from the normal line that it would take. Oh and I'd like to torture, very very slowly, the person who first thought of speed humps as a way of slowing traffic down ;-) Use speed cameras if you really must, but not a mechanism which penalises everyone (to a greater or lesser extent). All law-enforcement methods should be as invisible as possible to the people who abide by the laws and only affect those who don't. Of course the great benefit with speed cameras over humps is the revenue generating potential of cameras. Motorists who want to donate to local authority coffers can do so by exceeding the speed limit, while those who don't want to can simply obey the law. |
Routemasters (again)
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:40:24 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Truebrit "Turn right on red" is common in most of the USA. Sometimes this is on the basis of "common knowledge" that it is allowed in a particular State or area, and there may be no signs to show that you can do it. In some places, it is generally forbidden, except when there's a sign specifically allowing it. It's an eminently sensible idea, and I wish we could adopted a similar "turn left on red" generally in the UK (perhaps in exchange for our mini-roundabout system). While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the UK for this to work. NJR |
Routemasters (again)
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 11:14:11 UTC+1, wrote:
While it obviously aids traffic flow I'm not too keen on it as it won't be long before we have the "sorry mate, didn't see you" from a driver as a pedestrian lies squashed on the road. There are too many idiot drivers in the UK for this to work. Yes. Pedestrians already have right of way over a vehicle turning into a side road, but it's a perilous right to exercise. |
Routemasters (again)
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com