And they accuse Critical Mass of obstructing traffic!

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:01:42 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:


Indeed, even if it were an ordinary mobile phone that the motorist was
using, there are circumstances where such use would be legal; and
there is NO way the ambulance people would know whether or not those
circumstances applied.

If he had legitimate reason to be using it, is it likely he would have
behaved is such a loutish manner as he did?


We don't know how "loutish" the ambulance crew behaved.

IME people who involve themselves in the business of others have a
propensity to be loutish.

Derek

On 16 Nov, 07:37, "AndyC" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 15 Nov, 11:15, "AndyC" wrote:

Bad behaviour of other drivers cannot be used justify any bad behaviour
of
CM. In fact, I find it rather embarrassing that cyclists appear to be
some
of the worst road users when given their vulnerability, they ought to be
among the best.

In my opinion cyclists are among the best because they kill and injure
far fewer people than motorists, cause much less congestion and don't
seriously pollute like motorists.

While you raise valid points, my reference to cyclists was that they appear
to be some of the worst road users because often they fail to have much of a
concept of the law, safety and the Highway Code. That is totally different
from cycling itself being good for saftey, congestion and the environment.

I would put this down to the fact that traffic laws are not really
formulated with vulnerable cyclists in mind but are aimed mainly at
the majority motorised traffic. Cyclists seem to be treated as an
afterthought on our roads and pavements.

It also often gets overlooked that the speed limit is a legal maximum
limit,
not a goal or a speed that is supposed to be reached. It is an upper
maximum
limit. Driving carefully and cautiously, within the speed limit is not
against the law. As a general courtesy, it makes sense to allow others to
pass, when it is safe for them to do so, so as not to intentionally delay
other traffic.

Speed limits in general are set much too high in order to foster the
economy and profits at the expense of human lives.

I agree that in most cases speed limits are set to high. I am not sure that
this was done to foster the economy and profits. More likely it was done
originally to appease the middle classes who could afford a car. The order
and status of people on the roads, was a reflection of the order of society.
The lower classes (those who have to walk or cycle) bow to the superiority
of those who can afford a their own car. Now that almost everyone who works
can afford to run a car, the superiority of the higher classes on the roads
has diminished. We have ended up with a situation where there are too many
people in cars trying to get around faster than everyone else and expecting
superiority over them.

Agreed. But cyclists still suffer from a low status vestige from the
past?


--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Doug wrote:

I would put this down to the fact that traffic laws are not really
formulated with vulnerable cyclists in mind but are aimed mainly at
the majority motorised traffic. Cyclists seem to be treated as an
afterthought on our roads and pavements.

How do you arrive at that conclusion Doug? You might want to think about
when the laws were formulated and enacted and the number of cars on the road
and who could afford them.

I will be expecting a sensible response.

Oh, while I think about it, don't forget Vince's report will you?

"Doug" wrote in message
...

I would put this down to the fact that traffic laws are not really
formulated with vulnerable cyclists in mind but are aimed mainly at
the majority motorised traffic. Cyclists seem to be treated as an
afterthought on our roads and pavements.

Traffic laws were formulated in the days when there was a lot less traffic.
They do not seem to have changed much to reflect the current situation where
there are many forms of traffic sharing conjested roads.


Agreed. But cyclists still suffer from a low status vestige from the
past?

And isn't it the case that cyclists are often quite willing to keep their
lowly status by gutter riding, pavement riding and a general disrespect for
rules of the road? If cyclists actually want to be considered as "proper
traffic", they need to behave like proper traffic. They need to wear bright
clothes so they can be seen, they need lights after dark. They need to join
the traffic flow and use hand signals. As soon as the cyclist jumps on to
the pavement to pass a parked car or to skip the lights, they are opting
out. Sure, there is a lot that the road planners could do to consider
cyclists. Sure, drivers could respect cyclists in the same way they respect
other motorised traffic, but unless cyclists themselves behave in a proper
manner on the highway. No one else is going to have much respect for them.

On 16 Nov, 11:51, "AndyC" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

I would put this down to the fact that traffic laws are not really
formulated with vulnerable cyclists in mind but are aimed mainly at
the majority motorised traffic. Cyclists seem to be treated as an
afterthought on our roads and pavements.

Traffic laws were formulated in the days when there was a lot less traffic.
They do not seem to have changed much to reflect the current situation where
there are many forms of traffic sharing conjested roads.



Agreed. But cyclists still suffer from a low status vestige from the
past?

And isn't it the case that cyclists are often quite willing to keep their
lowly status by gutter riding, pavement riding and a general disrespect for
rules of the road? If cyclists actually want to be considered as "proper
traffic", they need to behave like proper traffic. They need to wear bright
clothes so they can be seen, they need lights after dark. They need to join
the traffic flow and use hand signals. As soon as the cyclist jumps on to
the pavement to pass a parked car or to skip the lights, they are opting
out. Sure, there is a lot that the road planners could do to consider
cyclists. Sure, drivers could respect cyclists in the same way they respect
other motorised traffic, but unless cyclists themselves behave in a proper
manner on the highway. No one else is going to have much respect for them.

I maintain that vulnerable cyclists are driven to behave badly,
according to rules of the road, by the risks posed by dangerous
drivers and by the inherent unsuitability of our roads, which are
primarily designed for and dominated by very fast motorised traffic,
mainly cars..

The point is that cyclists are not 'proper traffic', they are a
special, vulnerable category of road user and that is why they are
sometimes encouraged to share pavements, use special lanes and ASLs,
etc., but otherwise are left to their own devices when faced with high-
speed danger.

A classic example is pavement barriers which deny pedestrians easy
access to public roads and against which cyclists can easily be
crushed. Why are the barriers there? Ostensibly to protect pedestrians
against dangerous drivers but in reality to allow the latter to be
speeded on their merry way while the welfare of cyclists is not even
considered.

Cyclists are widely treated as second class road users and that is why
they are not respected. They are fair game for critics, the majority
of which do not observe all traffic laws either.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:

I would put this down to the fact that traffic laws are not really
formulated with vulnerable cyclists in mind but are aimed mainly at
the majority motorised traffic. Cyclists seem to be treated as an
afterthought on our roads and pavements.

How do you arrive at that conclusion Doug? You might want to think
about when the laws were formulated and enacted and the number of
cars on the road and who could afford them.

I will be expecting a sensible response.

Oh, while I think about it, don't forget Vince's report will you?

No responses Doug?

On Nov 15, 7:21*am, Doug wrote:


Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Doug,


the following would be a much better, and accurate, sig to be adopted
by you and CM.


"We aren't traffic. If we were then we'd have to obey the traffic
laws and that doesn't suit so we're really a procession. Except that
we're not a procession as that would mean we'd have to notify the
police of our proposed route, date and numbers, and that doesn't
really suit so we make our own minds up which rules and laws apply to
us as we see fit. Actually we're not traffic, nor a procession, but
eco-friendly anarchists, yeah!

We don't block traffic, at least not when that traffic is other
cyclists. Anything else has to let us pass, regardless of what the
traffic lights show. If we can't get through as a mass, we block all
other road users until we get our way. We call it 'corking' to make
it sound friendly but you probably think it's just really bad and
pointless congestion. It's not that we don't realise we're actually
making things worse, it's just that we don't give a monkey's. It's
democracy in action man. It's the exercise of individual free will,
only in a big group where we all copy each other.

By blocking up the streets on a Friday night rush hour, when decent
folk are trying to get home after a hard week at work, we're
demonstrating just how things could be if more bikes took to the
roads. We don't understand why this isn't welcomed with rounds of
applause from everyone in the streets.

We're spontaneous, not organised in any way. We meet regularly at the
same time and place on the last Friday of every month, which isn't
really spontaneous but true spontaneity doesn't suit us. It's better
if everyone can be organised to be in the same place at the same time
for the maximum expression of singularity and distinctiveness.

There is no set route, we just amble along wherever the mood takes
us. There are no organisers and anyone is free to cycle in whatever
direction he wants but somehow or other the mass stays together;
hundreds of free spirits exercising independent thought and movement
to, erm, all go the same way.

We could ride past all the other traffic, making best use of our
smaller size and better mobility, quickly melting away into the night,
leaving the poor sods stuck in their tin pots; that would perfectly
highlight the advantages of cycling buuut ...that doesn't suit us.

We fight for your freedom of movement and expression. While cyclists
in America face pepper sprays, handcuffs, arrest, boltcutters and
impounded bikes, WE run the real risk of being issued with a fixed
penalty notice!

And what do we think of this persecution? Well we don't actually have
a set opinion as it will likely depend on some other factor... maybe
something we hadn't thought of yet but it'll come soon, honest."

regards,
Calum

"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I will be expecting a sensible response.

Oh, while I think about it, don't forget Vince's report will you?

No responses Doug?

Give him a chance. He'll claim he never promised a report in a week or
two.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I maintain that vulnerable cyclists are driven to behave badly,
according to rules of the road, by the risks posed by dangerous drivers
and by the inherent unsuitability of our roads, which are primarily
designed for and dominated by very fast motorised traffic, mainly cars..

The point is that cyclists are not 'proper traffic', they are a special,
vulnerable category of road user and that is why they are sometimes
encouraged to share pavements, use special lanes and ASLs, etc., but
otherwise are left to their own devices when faced with high- speed
danger.

A classic example is pavement barriers which deny pedestrians easy
access to public roads and against which cyclists can easily be crushed.
Why are the barriers there? Ostensibly to protect pedestrians against
dangerous drivers but in reality to allow the latter to be speeded on
their merry way while the welfare of cyclists is not even considered.

Cyclists are widely treated as second class road users and that is why
they are not respected. They are fair game for critics, the majority of
which do not observe all traffic laws either.

You're beyond parody.

On Nov 17, 7:52*am, Doug wrote:


Cyclists are widely treated as second class road users and that is why
they are not respected.

No, it's because so many ride as though compliance with traffic laws
and highway code guidance is such a damned inconvenience.
It's people like you who give us law-abiding cyclists a bad name.

Calum