|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 09:21, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:41:29 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/10/2014 16:31, Judith wrote: "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain Nah... that can't be correct. Going through a red light causes no real danger, you see. It can't have been the cyclist's fault. Obviously the Beak did not believe that. Well... *I* know that... and *you* know that... but... |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. So as long as the miscreant gets "a fair punishment", there's no need for the law to act positively in order dissuade cyclists from putting others at risk? I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. What's the relevance of that? You *are* aware that there is a large body of law which aims to prevent such things, aren't you? Or are you all for letting motorists (as well as cyclists) do exactly as they please and only take action after a death or serious injury has occurred? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 13:32, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. Cite? They are not reported apparently. Well here they a Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece And to put things in perspective (from the same article): "Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585. In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured. Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian." You'd find something similar if analysing deaths of pedestrians in accidents involving motor vehicles as well*, but that is never taken to mean that it's "just one of theose things" about which nothing can or should be done. As a result, we have a road network with many physical features and behavioural constraints in order to reduce the number of such incidents. Traffic lights (eg, pelicons or pedestrian phases at junctions) are one of those. [* I have collided with two pedestrians in a little over forty-two years driving. In either case, the fault was entirely the fault of the pedestrian, though I am happy to report that due to my vigilance and quick responses, no significant injury was caused either time.] |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 20:53, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:40, TMS320 wrote: "Peter Keller" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. (BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.) So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially the ones about traffic lights? Another example of you making something up out of nothing. You really don't understand metaphors. Pardon? What does a metaphor have to do with the danger of bicycling through traffic lights? I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads. The hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the noise. So it's not dangerous? And not illegal? And obviously said cyclist has no consideration for the safety of pedestrians who may be crossing during the green man phase. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. You mean like the cyclist who cycled through the bus stop queue I was waiting in tonight? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:40:00 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:
snip I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads. The hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the noise. Do you perhaps mean the noise of the cyclists shouting "Coming through - get out of my ****ing way"? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:40:00 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
"Peter Keller" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. (BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.) So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially the ones about traffic lights? Another example of you making something up out of nothing. You really don't understand metaphors. Pardon? What does a metaphor have to do with the danger of bicycling through traffic lights? I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads. The hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the noise. I fail to see any connection between sharks in the sea and red traffic lights. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:01:20 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2014 09:21, Peter Keller wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:41:29 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/10/2014 16:31, Judith wrote: "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain Nah... that can't be correct. Going through a red light causes no real danger, you see. It can't have been the cyclist's fault. Obviously the Beak did not believe that. Well... *I* know that... and *you* know that... but... Yea -- I know -- |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:27:41 +0000, Cassandra wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:23:03 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:04:28 +0000, Cassandra wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:45:43 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? Don't worry, all liability is removed from the cyclist provided they shout "I'm not stopping, get out of the ****ing way" Please, take me to this "****ing way" As a cyclist you'll spend most of your time in it And loving it! Do you know what I would do in a ****ing way? Do you know whom I might find in a ****ing way? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:33:34 +0000, Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: "Cassandra" wrote On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:58:59 +0100, "TMS320" "Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. So in summary if you hit a cyclist jumping a red light its the drivers fault for not looking properly. You appear to be trying to suggest that all road crashes occur as a result of red light infringements and there is no other cause. No, I'm suggesting jumping red lights is dangerous both to psycolists, innocent pedestrains and qualified road users. Ai wud thinc tht jamping redd laits iz awlso verry daenjerus too kars nd lories awlso. Although poor comprehension skills would explain why psycholists interpret the Highway Code in a manner that suggests English or common sense isn't their first language Yew mait bi rite. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No lights, no reflectors, dark clothing, thick fog, no helmet. Whydo cyclists have a death wish? | Mrcheerful | UK | 16 | February 1st 14 09:20 AM |
No lights, no Hi-Viz, Dark clothing, oh, and on the M1 | Mrcheerful | UK | 58 | October 21st 13 09:02 AM |
No lights, dark clothing, you know what comes next | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | July 11th 13 11:12 PM |
Bicycles need lights when it is dark. | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 122 | July 3rd 12 08:28 AM |
Dark blue lights | Meeba | Australia | 3 | May 11th 04 10:38 AM |