Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 18:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 20:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 02:07
Posts: 242
if laws are constantly broken there's probably something wrong with the law.

Many cyclists cross red lights only when it's totally safe to do so.

Will I be flashed for passing the stop line to take an advanced position? It won't be police discretion, it will be NIPs.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 21:09 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Earl Purple wrote:
Many cyclists cross red lights only when it's totally safe to do so.

and what would you have to say if it were motorised road users doing that (along with requisite number of idiots who go through without looking)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 23:42 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
johnsher wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Many cyclists cross red lights only when it's totally safe to do so.

and what would you have to say if it were motorised road users doing that (along with requisite number of idiots who go through without looking)?

If you can see it is safe to go though the red light then what is wrong with doing it? Or... why is the traffic light there anyway?

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 07:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Ziltro wrote:
If you can see it is safe to go though the red light then what is wrong with doing it?

the problem is that there are far too many misjudments of what is "safe" as well as smidsys both by cyclists and motor vehicles.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
Ziltro wrote:
If you can see it is safe to go though the red light then what is wrong with doing it?

the problem is that there are far too many misjudments of what is "safe" as well as smidsys both by cyclists and motor vehicles.


So we have to get rid of all give-ways then?

Or are you using a bit of logic or data that I haven't cottoned onto yet?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
So we have to get rid of all give-ways then?

Or are you using a bit of logic or data that I haven't cottoned onto yet?

That is one of the dangers of a give-way. Why unnecessarily introduce that danger to traffic lights?
If you want to argue that we should rip out all the lights and have a free-for-all instead then go right ahead but as long as the lights are there it is far safer if people use them as they were designed to be used.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
So we have to get rid of all give-ways then?

Or are you using a bit of logic or data that I haven't cottoned onto yet?

That is one of the dangers of a give-way. Why unnecessarily introduce that danger to traffic lights?
If you want to argue that we should rip out all the lights and have a free-for-all instead then go right ahead but as long as the lights are there it is far safer if people use them as they were designed to be used.


I'm just saying that you used the wrong argument. I don't have a better one to offer at this stage.

If people can be trusted to give way at give-ways, then they could also be trusted to give way at red lights if we made that the rule.

I think the real issue is more about having a set of rules that are worthy of respect.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:27 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
SafeSpeed wrote:
...I think the real issue is more about having a set of rules that are worthy of respect.

Hear hear...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 19:48 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think the real issue is more about having a set of rules that are worthy of respect.


Or having a populace that doesn't deign to observe the rules we have under sufferance.

If new rules were drawn up, I wonder how quickly people would find ways of disrespecting them as well.

Or maybe I was just born half a century too late.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 20:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think the real issue is more about having a set of rules that are worthy of respect.


Or having a populace that doesn't deign to observe the rules we have under sufferance.


Noooooooo!

The population is the population. You can't blame people for being people. It's up to the rule-makers and the society-builders to provide a framework for the people.

Of course there will always be people who don't play by the rules - but the rule-makers need to cater for them too.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 20:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
SafeSpeed wrote:
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
So we have to get rid of all give-ways then?

Or are you using a bit of logic or data that I haven't cottoned onto yet?

That is one of the dangers of a give-way. Why unnecessarily introduce that danger to traffic lights?
If you want to argue that we should rip out all the lights and have a free-for-all instead then go right ahead but as long as the lights are there it is far safer if people use them as they were designed to be used.


I'm just saying that you used the wrong argument. I don't have a better one to offer at this stage.

If people can be trusted to give way at give-ways, then they could also be trusted to give way at red lights if we made that the rule.

I think the real issue is more about having a set of rules that are worthy of respect.


French have the right idea by flashing all the ambers at night. This means that the crossings do become a "Give Way"

Any other time - as posted on similar topic in the cyling main forum.. I tend to obey red lights whether on bike or in car. Especially wide crossings on faster roads. :wink:

But basically - this is about the rights and wrongs of having cyclists register bikes and can see argument from point of view of holding the louts accountable for their actions, tracing stolen bikes and so on. Part of me also finds it amusing that the cyclists are full of belligerent handwringing and acccusations of "persecution" that someone dare take photo of their "wrong doing".. send NIP with menaces through the post and use the fine money for "cycle lane provision".

Somehow.. I see the funny side .. sorry. :lol: :boxedin: :popcorn:

This post does not mean I agree.100% with yet more control freakery. but that I see the irony of the situation :lol:

The sad part.. like the proposals for the mini-bikes - and I agree it's another serious problem - but again they will put points on a driver licence before the child who offended - aged ten - is eligible to apply for any licence. I think this will also be the case for cyclists .. points on a non-existent licence or on a licence they may have. Somehow I think this is inappropriate. :roll:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 20:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Noooooooo!

The population is the population. You can't blame people for being people. It's up to the rule-makers and the society-builders to provide a framework for the people.


Ahhh, thats where I'm going wrong then.

So if I run enough red lights, break enough speed limits, ignore enough give-way lines, fail to pay enouigh taxes and encourage others to do the same, the rule makers and society builders will observe our 'normal behaviour' and change the rules to suit.

Gotcha


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 21:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Letter in tonight's "MEN" Postbag page 25. It bridges thread in Cycling and here to some extent :roll: :wink:

Rose McG in the Manchester local wrote:
:listenup: SEE THE INJURIES!

All cyclists should be made to have insurance. I have seen several go through red lights. If a motorist did this - there would be an outcry from these self-righteous people.

A relative sustained broken ribs abd head injuries when he was hit on the pavement by a bicycle. There was no excuse for the cyclist - the roads were quiet.


Rose.. I know what you mean. Roads were quiet when that cyclist caused me to fall down the gas work trench last year. I needed stitches in my leg. It hurt and I may be a medico - but I confess that I do not like the sight of my own blood :oops: :roll: :wink:

I also know that the German pal of a relative had a really awful experience in Northern Germany too. He lost his unborn son, nerly lost his wife and his daughter has a permanent limp after a cyclist collided with the child and fell into the mother.. just at the heavily pregnant bump. So yes - tragedy does occur. Rare, of course, .. but it has been known to happen. :cry:

But there are less serious incidents but which still end up in A&E and not always coded correctly :roll:

As Rose says..

Quote:

Go into the hospitals. Look at the injuries - slight to quite serious and then decide if it's safe to ride on pavement.


Somehow - I think Rose will vote for registration .... :roll: :wink:

This letter is just the tip of the iceberg. Much as it pains me to admit.. I think Ken may just win through on this .. even if running against our true "saviour" per the Indie :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Just to spell out to those lurking people who are devoid of sense of humour and who take things literally ... references to JC are "tongue in cheek". I think Richard Hammond summed up correctly :lol: 8-) :shock: :P :lol:

Letter in the Waily had equal sentiments.

Real answer of course.. those really nice Boys in :wink: Blue who can use their brains, common sense, initiative and judgement. :wink:

So .. since Paul has always been suggesting more police and less automation.. ... :wink:

Hmmmmm! :lol:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 21:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Noooooooo!

The population is the population. You can't blame people for being people. It's up to the rule-makers and the society-builders to provide a framework for the people.


Ahhh, thats where I'm going wrong then.

So if I run enough red lights, break enough speed limits, ignore enough give-way lines, fail to pay enouigh taxes and encourage others to do the same, the rule makers and society builders will observe our 'normal behaviour' and change the rules to suit.

Gotcha


:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 21:43 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 21:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


I agree. But who do you blame?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 22:00 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


I agree. But who do you blame?


Fascinating question.

I'll get back to you.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 22:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


I agree. But who do you blame?


The pee-cee brigade who make every excuse to explain away why someone is not responsible for their actions.

The pee-cee brigade who think that no one should be responsible for their actions. They cannot help tunnel vision - you see. :roll:


The pee-cee brigade who think we are "genetically programmed" :roll:

The pee-cee brigade who see any kind of human initiative or risk assessment or even common sense as some kind of subversively dangerous activity.

That's for starts. I could dig a lot deeper of course. :roll: :wink:

Gradually this undermines human endeavour and the spirit which led to the discovery of all we hold dear today. We thus end up devouring and destroying all we esteem in civilised values as a result.

There..that deep enough :lol: :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 23:37 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 02:07
Posts: 242
The big difference is that bicycles are not cars. So the law does not have to be the same for both.

There is a danger at a crossroads at an all-red phase if you don't know which light will turn green next. If it is the road you are crossing then it is indeed unsafe to go. Traffic on those roads will not be expecting a bicycle crossing their path as their light turns green.

I'm referring more to

1. Pedestrian crossings when there are no pedestrians. Particularly the new ones that have no flashing-amber phase so it stays on a red phase for a long time.

2. All-pedestrian phases at a crossroads where the pedestrian lights are still green (so you know it is not about to turn green for the road you are crossing because it is safe for a pedestrian to cross and they cross slower). But at a time where there are no pedestrians. (Often the pedestrian phase is automatic. Or there is a pedestrian somewhere on the junction but not crossing your path).

3. Left turns into a side-road where only traffic leaving that side-road may go (not oncoming traffic turning right). Ensure you give way to any pedestrians crossing it.

4. Going ahead where traffic is merging from the right if there is a cycle lane anyway.

5. Traffic lights for absolutely no reason, eg Canonbury Road crossing Canonbury Square where the latter is closed off, the "ahead" movement on some roads where the right-turn light is green and nothing is merging (and there are no pedestrians).

For car traffic, red means stop whatever, and I never run a red light in my car. Probably most cyclists who run red lights on their bike would also never do so in a car.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 07:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Earl Purple wrote:
The big difference is that bicycles are not cars. So the law does not have to be the same for both.


Since cyclists und their magazines are always saying that they are "traffic" und BC pulled up Ted for referring to "bicycle" und "traffic" accusing him of differentiating und giving a "different status".

Thys if cyclists want "equal status as "traffic" - then the law und road traffic rules with regard to "STOP" signs - whether big red sign or signal of any kind und requierement to stop at crossings have to be the SAME for all road users - including horses und pedestrians to a much lesser extent (I would love j-walking to be offence - sometimes ist most "aggressive") .

Quote:
There is a danger at a crossroads at an all-red phase if you don't know which light will turn green next. If it is the road you are crossing then it is indeed unsafe to go. Traffic on those roads will not be expecting a bicycle crossing their path as their light turns green.


Exactly the points raised by Mad Doc in the thread on the cycling sub forum, Liebchen.

If light ist a green for one road of junction - then they will not expect anything to deliberately run the red one - und if an emergency vehicle does so - then they are supposed to use their blues/twos to alert other road users of their presence und only go if the other driver gives way to them. They cannot just blat through - per IG und per all the BiB on the PH site too.

Quote:
I'm referring more to

1. Pedestrian crossings when there are no pedestrians. Particularly the new ones that have no flashing-amber phase so it stays on a red phase for a long time.


We said that this ist slightly different und COAST related too. You can see if someone at kerb waiting for green man or not. There are perhaps more Toucan/Puffin than Pelican which do still flash the amber. Und if person ist on crossing at flashing stage - you still cannot go.

Und what ist a long time? I think these are about a second/two second - giving time for elderly to cross.

If on bike - I get my breath back :wink:

Quote:
2. All-pedestrian phases at a crossroads where the pedestrian lights are still green (so you know it is not about to turn green for the road you are crossing because it is safe for a pedestrian to cross and they cross slower). But at a time where there are no pedestrians. (Often the pedestrian phase is automatic. Or there is a pedestrian somewhere on the junction but not crossing your path).


If no pedestrian in sight - fine. If pedestrian on junction und continuing to cross - then you do not know for sure if they break into run - thinking they get oout of your way quicker. Far better to make eye contact und establish their intent - even waving them across so that you can continue without losing too much "momentum on the pedal" :wink:


Quote:
3. Left turns into a side-road where only traffic leaving that side-road may go (not oncoming traffic turning right). Ensure you give way to any pedestrians crossing it.


Highway Code says you should do this. They have right of way if already crossing. Ist COAST - you should see these! :wink: Well in advance und know that they will be on the road und crossing or may not even look over shoulder und see anything indicating to turn left - whatever number of wheels! :roll: Ist COAST - you look at body language .. there are clues. Und best one of all ist the "uniform Handy pose" :roll: It does look ridiculous.. every man, woman und child gluing this gadget (which has more germs than a public lav seat :shock: ) to ear ... :roll:


I knew there was another reason why I could never get into the Handy worship :hehe:

Quote:
4. Going ahead where traffic is merging from the right if there is a cycle lane anyway.


But not at lights. Und if chicane with priority for the other way - they are still required to obey too. (Not like the twit who rode straight through shaking his fist at the cars who had right of way but just stopped to allow him through. I am pleased to say he was so full of self righteous arm waving (und if you notice - person who make all the rude gestures on road ...always the one who make the silly error anyway. Germans und Swiss :cop: prosecute these rude gestures too... :shock: )that he fail to notice the pot hole in road und got a bit of a come-uppance - but managed - only just - not to come off bike. :roll:

Moral.... keep hands on handlebars und keep calm und accept own error with apologetic und rueful smile might be better then :wink:

Quote:
5. Traffic lights for absolutely no reason, eg Canonbury Road crossing Canonbury Square where the latter is closed off, the "ahead" movement on some roads where the right-turn light is green and nothing is merging (and there are no pedestrians).


Then that ist different - but I would phone Highways dept of council und ask why these lights for no reason und estaablish why they are there. :wink:

Quote:
For car traffic, red means stop whatever, and I never run a red light in my car. Probably most cyclists who run red lights on their bike would also never do so in a car.


If they were fined und points on licence - they would not do so on bike either. That may come next given plans to kerb the nuisance mini-motor bikes.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.044s | 9 Queries | GZIP : Off ]