Tonight's Critical Mass

Tom Crispin wrote in
:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:29:28 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

Did you obey all traffic regulations?

No.

I kept within the speed limit (irrelevant for cyclists expect in Royal
Parks), and never rode on the footway. At least four times I went
through red lights.

I was not involved in any "corking".


I still cannot understand why you think it's ok to ignore traffic
regulations yet criticise other road users for ignoring them.

Judith M Smith wrote in
:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:27:37 +0100, "Wm...the ****wit"
wrote:

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:49:57
uk.rec.cycling JNugent

[Your post amended so as to read comprehensibly in English without the
pseudo-intellectual Franglais; no need for thanks.]

Look at me, fool, I might be a pseudo intellectual too.


No - not at all - you are just a ****wit.

Just put the **** in your killfile like I have. I can't make head or tail
of what he's saying anyway.

Danny Colyer wrote in
news
On 29/08/2009 11:21, Tom Crispin wrote:
As Critical Mass is legally defined as a procession, I do not think
that it is morally wrong for the peloton to keep together as a group
through light controlled road junctions;

I strongly disagree, unless there is a police presence directing the
mass to pass through the red lights.

Indeed the second (and last) time that I rode in a CM I left part way
through the ride in disgust due to red light jumping by others.

I'm glad there's at least one decent cyclist here with some common sense.

Tom Crispin wrote in
news
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:03:56 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

On 29/08/2009 11:21, Tom Crispin wrote:
As Critical Mass is legally defined as a procession, I do not think
that it is morally wrong for the peloton to keep together as a group
through light controlled road junctions;

I strongly disagree, unless there is a police presence directing the
mass to pass through the red lights.

Indeed the second (and last) time that I rode in a CM I left part way
through the ride in disgust due to red light jumping by others.

Lead cyclists on a CM ride certainly do stop a red traffic signal.
Once the light turns to green the entire Mass passes through even if
the lights subsequently turn to red. If they did not do this the ride
would become fragmented.


Absolutely NO excuse under any circumstances. Thank God you're not going
to be a moderator. Maybe Jackson does have some sense.

The lead peloton would stop in an attempt

Please can you stop speaking in French otherwise I'll inflict some of my
schoolboy French on you.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:40:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Did you obey all traffic regulations?

No.

I kept within the speed limit (irrelevant for cyclists expect in Royal
Parks), and never rode on the footway. At least four times I went
through red lights.

I was not involved in any "corking".

Did the police permit you to jump the red-lights?

If so - ignore following:

Very inconsiderate, foolish, dangerous and illegal.

What made you think this was acceptable?

Are you not supposed to be a role model for the school kids and the
kids you teach cycling to?

What would you have said if someone had gone through their green light
and then hit you?

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Mr. Benn wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote in
:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:29:28 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

Did you obey all traffic regulations?
No.

I kept within the speed limit (irrelevant for cyclists expect in Royal
Parks), and never rode on the footway. At least four times I went
through red lights.

I was not involved in any "corking".


I still cannot understand why you think it's ok to ignore traffic
regulations yet criticise other road users for ignoring them.

Because he is one of those cyclists that are so important that traffic
laws do not apply to him.

--

Tony Dragon

On 29/08/2009 15:34, Tom Crispin wrote:
Lead cyclists on a CM ride certainly do stop a red traffic signal.
Once the light turns to green the entire Mass passes through even if
the lights subsequently turn to red. If they did not do this the ride
would become fragmented. The lead peloton would stop in an attempt
for the following peloton(s) to catch up, but by this time motor
vehicles would have got in amoung the riders, so these motorists would
have to be allowed past the lead peloton for the following peloton(s)
to catch up. In an area with very heavy traffic light density, such
as London, this would mean the progress of Critical Mass would be even
slower than it already is, and drivers following the mass, who already
face the worst delays, would face even longer delays.

The purpose of a CM is supposed to be to highlight the presence of bikes
as traffic. Pretending not to be traffic (for example by ignoring
traffic regulations) seems counterproductive to me, and does a
disservice to all cyclists by reinforcing the stereotype of cyclists as
lawbreakers.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:03:56 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

On 29/08/2009 11:21, Tom Crispin wrote:
As Critical Mass is legally defined as a procession, I do not think
that it is morally wrong for the peloton to keep together as a group
through light controlled road junctions;
I strongly disagree, unless there is a police presence directing the
mass to pass through the red lights.

Indeed the second (and last) time that I rode in a CM I left part way
through the ride in disgust due to red light jumping by others.

Lead cyclists on a CM ride certainly do stop a red traffic signal.
Once the light turns to green the entire Mass passes through even if
the lights subsequently turn to red.

So break the law & potentially cause accidents.

If they did not do this the ride
would become fragmented.

So what

The lead peloton would stop in an attempt
for the following peloton(s) to catch up, but by this time motor
vehicles would have got in amoung the riders, so these motorists would
have to be allowed past the lead peloton for the following peloton(s)
to catch up.

And so?

In an area with very heavy traffic light density, such
as London, this would mean the progress of Critical Mass would be even
slower than it already is, and drivers following the mass, who already
face the worst delays, would face even longer delays.

Ah, I see, you only break the law to help motorists.

--

Tony Dragon

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:09:21
uk.rec.cycling Mr. Benn %%@%%.%

Please can you stop speaking in French otherwise I'll inflict some of my
schoolboy French on you.

Do it. I'll be amused.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Doug wrote:
On 29 Aug, 14:09, "Brimstone" wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:12:08 +0100, JNugent
wrote:
That cyclist is *not* more important than the bus driver or any of
the several passengers who may have been aboard.
The cyclists' safety is more important than a couple of minutes of the
bus driver's and passengers' time.
Then the cyclist should take responsibility for his own safety.

Why?

Because that is the sensible thing to do.

Because motor vehicles are highly dangerous and lethal in the
wrong hands? In which case why aren't the drivers made to take
responsibility for other people's safety,

They are

instead of being allowed to
ram cyclists who get in their way.

Proof?


--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--

Tony Dragon