66 percent of cyclists ignore red lights

On 22/07/2013 10:51, wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 10:42:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I see no reason to doubt it. The reporter was there and I was not. In
don't think you were there either.

Are you such a wide-eyed innocent that you believe everything you read in a newspaper?

There is no obvious reason why that reporter would be making it up.

there are plenty of obvious reasons why cyclists would wish to pretend
that he made it up.

The only circumstance in which you could possibly have meant what you
specifically said would be that you were present at the scene (being the
cyclist in the picture, perhaps) and are thus in a position to offer an
alternative explanation (which might or might not be accepted) for a
picture which otherwise, you cannot explain except in terms of it
depicting exactly what the caption says it depicts.

And is there any reason to doubt it?

Other than that you simply don't want to accept it, I mean.

Lets analyse this photo. The An Post lorry is in front of the red light, so has the light only just turned to red, is there a jam, is the cyclist about to stop? None of these questions can be answered from this photograph.

So it was you on the bike?

On 22/07/2013 12:25, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, JNugent wrote:

picture which otherwise, you cannot explain except in terms of it
depicting exactly what the caption says it depicts.

Let's see. The picture depicts a cyclist who has not crossed the stop
line at a traffic light that is red. In your world this plainly
proves that the cyclist disregarded the red light?

The reporter reports what he sees.

he is there.

I assume (safely, I believe) that you were not.

Do you think cyclists should stop immediately they come into sight of
any red traffic light and put both feet on the ground until it turns
green?

They could do a lot worse.

Let's face it, they usually do a lot worse.

On 22/07/2013 13:12, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:40:36 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, JNugent wrote:

picture which otherwise, you cannot explain except in terms of it
depicting exactly what the caption says it depicts.

Let's see. The picture depicts a cyclist who has not crossed the
stop line at a traffic light that is red. In your world this
plainly proves that the cyclist disregarded the red light?

Do you think cyclists should stop immediately they come into sight
of any red traffic light and put both feet on the ground until it
turns green?

They should slow or stop (if safe to do so) so that they do not
cross the Stop line while the lamp shows Red or Amber or a
combination of the two, the law is quite clear on this and it is
explained in the Highway Code.

Yes. And does the photograph show that the cyclist crossed the stop
line while the light was red?

The main thing being shown in the picture is the pedestrian getting out
of the way of the approaching cyclist heading towards a red light with
no sign of stopping.

How do we know this, you might ask?

We know it because:

(a) we are told it,

(b) the photograph supports it, and

(c) we all know that this is typical urban cyclist behaviour.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 16:49:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The reporter reports what he sees.

Your innocent faith in the impartiality of the press is touching.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 16:52:06 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The main thing being shown in the picture is the pedestrian getting out
of the way of the approaching cyclist heading towards a red light with
no sign of stopping.

That is one of several possible interpretations.

On 22/07/2013 17:02, wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 16:52:06 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The main thing being shown in the picture is the pedestrian getting out
of the way of the approaching cyclist heading towards a red light with
no sign of stopping.

That is one of several possible interpretations.

Coupled with the reporter telling us the rest (and what reason would ha
have for making it up?).

On Monday, 22 July 2013 17:07:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2013 17:02, wrote:

On Monday, 22 July 2013 16:52:06 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The main thing being shown in the picture is the pedestrian getting out
of the way of the approaching cyclist heading towards a red light with
no sign of stopping.

That is one of several possible interpretations.

Coupled with the reporter telling us the rest (and what reason would ha
have for making it up?).

I don't know the chap, so I couldn't tell you. Perhaps he wants to knock out a quick eye-catching story to keep his editor happy so he can get back to his pint of Guinness.

On 22/07/2013 17:21, wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 17:07:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/07/2013 17:02, wrote:

On Monday, 22 July 2013 16:52:06 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

The main thing being shown in the picture is the pedestrian getting out
of the way of the approaching cyclist heading towards a red light with
no sign of stopping.

That is one of several possible interpretations.

Coupled with the reporter telling us the rest (and what reason would ha
have for making it up?).

I don't know the chap, so I couldn't tell you. Perhaps he wants to knock out a quick eye-catching story to keep his editor happy so he can get back to his pint of Guinness.

Perhaps.

But why concentrate on cyclists when a story about little green men
would catch more eyes?

On Monday, 22 July 2013 17:44:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

But why concentrate on cyclists when a story about little green men
would catch more eyes?

Not in Ireland, little green men and leprechauns are old hat.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:56:16 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

The actual subject is does the photo show a cyclist who has broken
the law.

The actual answer is only if you think cyclists break the law by
approaching a stop line while the light is red.

It would be highly unlikely that a newspaper would print a picture
that actually shows an identifiable rider making an illegal
manouevre. The picture is probably not actually directly relevant
to the written content, I am a little surprised that anyone would
be so naive as to think it is.

It's blatantly not relevant to the article - the article refers to
the junction some way down the road, the picture is of a pedestrian
crossing away from where the article says the count was taken.

However, you are claiming that the *caption to the picture* which is
what claims the picture shows a cyclist breaking the law is not
directly relevant to the picture.

Yes, Mr Cheerful says that it is highly unlikely that a newspaper will
caption a picture with text relevant to the picture.

What do you think the caption to a picture is *for*?


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|