A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Routemasters (again)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:13 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 09:40, Norman Wells wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 03/08/2013 09:06, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:41:43 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The signals displayed by a traffic light mean stop, stop, stop,
and give way.
There is no Go, as even a green only allows you to proceed if
the way is clear.

Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for
that, please?

Well it must be against some law to run someone over deliberately.

I was referring to Lee LJ's claim that there are three traffic light
phases ("stop / stop / stop / give way" as he put it).

I count four there, tbh.

And he's right.

Red - Stop.
Amber - Stop.
Red & Amber - Stop.
Green - Proceed if the way is clear.

As for reference, is this authoritative enough...?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum...ssets/@dg/@en/
documents/digitalasset/dg_070561.pdf


Absolutely.

Thank you.

It confirms that green means "go" and not "give way".


Only if you're deficient in English.


You're wrong, and you're wrong because you are focusing on the wrong
thing. See my adjacent reply.


Ads
  #92  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:17 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.


I did read it and there is no problem.

No mention of "give way".


Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law
at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone
else's fault if he gets run over.


If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User
B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.
  #93  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:36 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Alexis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Routemasters (again)

Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.


I did read it and there is no problem.

No mention of "give way".


Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law
at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone
else's fault if he gets run over.


If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User
B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.


You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the
insurance companies? Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus
intact while B is not?

  #94  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:40 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.


I did read it and there is no problem.

No mention of "give way".


Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.


Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of
that point?

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law
at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone
else's fault if he gets run over.


If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User
B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.


It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless.


"If".

Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.


Of course it is.

But not to Lee LJ.
  #95  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:53 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:40:53 +0100, JNugent wrote:

No mention of "give way".


Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.


Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of
that point?


If you're going to complain about failing to read or ignoring, then at
least try not to do the exact same within one post...

If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road
User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.


It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic.


^ "and _avoidably_"

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A
could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless.


"If".


^ "and _avoidably_"
  #96  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:54 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Routemasters (again)

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:36:42 +0100, Alexis wrote:

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the
law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's
someone else's fault if he gets run over.


If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road
User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.


You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the
insurance companies?


No such thing as "knock-for-knock" these days.

Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus intact while B is not?


No. Both will be held at fault. Correctly so. The insurers will split the
costs 50/50. (K-f-K implies A's insurers pay A's repairs, B's pay B's.
It's simpler than that.)
  #97  
Old August 3rd 13, 10:59 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 03/08/2013 10:53, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:40:53 +0100, JNugent wrote:

No mention of "give way".


Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.


Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of
that point?


If you're going to complain about failing to read or ignoring, then at
least try not to do the exact same within one post...


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.

If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road
User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.


It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic.


^ "and _avoidably_"

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A
could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless.


"If".


^ "and _avoidably_"


Just highlighting that needs to be highlighted.
  #98  
Old August 3rd 13, 11:02 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Routemasters (again)

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...
  #99  
Old August 3rd 13, 11:22 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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...


We'll have to differ on that. My take is that the writers of the code
are simply putting in a reminder to the effect that you might (even if
you usually won't) encounter someone passing a red light, or, more
frequently, that the junction itself might not have been cleared of
queuing traffic in congested conditions.
  #100  
Old August 3rd 13, 11:28 AM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Routemasters (again)

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:46:47 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:02:23 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:48:42 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards

I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.

That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.

If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).

Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing?

Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being
that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be
aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which
any response to your question would hang.

Pelicon, he
http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8
http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP
http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL

Supplementary question(s):

1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision
occurred?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.

2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has
avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether
the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.

c, c.




Well what a surprise.


It shouldn't be... I'd already said as much.




Crispin does not know.
What a surprise.


Whooooosh.



We know that you don't know: it is never a surprise. You live up to your
reputation as the failed school teacher.

(Why not start suggesting that certain things are "decriminalised" so that LAs
can collect money from motorists. That sounds a good plan, and you will go
right up in everyone's estimation of you. Unless it goes up your arse of
course)



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.