|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrong side of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 00:22, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote: Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)? Yes, or no? Which is it? It is in the rules. Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? Sigh. What is the end benefit expected by the rule? Safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Then you're assuming the intention of the law. There is nothing special about you so stop trying to tell others that they should not. Yes, a driver taking 1.5 - 44 tonnes through at 30mph is dangerous. It is easy for any observer to see that without any knowledge of the written rules. Rephrase. What is the expected benefit of applying the rule to cyclists? |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 11:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 00:21, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2020 20:28, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 10:54, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:32, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote: On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote: On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote: [ ... ] All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a smacked botty. So you "think" that passing cyclists (or perhaps even keyboard warrior cyclists such as yourself) should be able to decide on whether drivers have committed an offence. Obviously. The difference is that when a "decision" is made, unlike Her Majesty, your "keyboard warrior" has no power or means to give the culprit a smacked botty. Er... exactly. Should it be otherwise? And if it were, would it be equally acceptable for a normal citizen to peremptorily find cyclists guilty of causing danger to pedestrians whose only crime was to be walking along a footway? Take your time. Expressing an opinion is the not the same thing as finding guilty. Indeed it is not. But perhaps I can remind you that this tangent was entered into by *you*, with your complaint that the courts don't convict drivers of dangerous driving sufficiently often for your taste. Posters here are already well aware of your opinion on such matters - and you must be well aware of just how highly I value it. You still have the problem that the difference between drivers causing danger and cyclists causing danger is the difference between statistics and perception. Not at all. Some cyclists seem to have fairly significant problems with perception; that much is clear. But aside from that, "causing danger" and "dangerous driving" are not necessarily the same thing. As you may be aware (one can never be certain of what you do know), it is, for instance, dangerous (and a clear and absolute offence) to leave a parked vehicle within the zig-zag lines on the approach side to a pedestrian crossing. It is punished by a fine and an endorsement because of the danger it can cause. But it is not "dangerous driving" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. Back to "perception"... Perhaps your perception is simply faulty. That would explain the dislocation between your odd views of what constitutes danger (and dangerous driving) and that of the law (and of society in general) and would also fall in line with the precepts set out by William of ockham. Failing to stop and kow-tow to every fairy-cycle on the road 9still less the footway) is not dangerous driving, or even dangerous. Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect. I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed. Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling review, amendment and consolidation of statute law? Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread. But not within this topic. If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter frequently and randomly pops up. Irrelevant. It is not. Oh, you mean just because one person does something, it doesn't "justify" another doing it. That is a well-established principle. Well, it is also an established principle that when a cyclist recounts the occasion of having to dodge actual mortal danger caused by a driver, trying to counter it by recalling an occasion of seeing a cyclist breaking the law is rather pathetic. Who established that? And see above re the often hyperbolic reactions of cyclists who seem to be object to the presence of other forms of traffic. Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful? To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues of safety. On the topic of law and safety, do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful? Some places it is, some places it is not. I am speaking of *footways* where only walking is allowed in a linear direction (like the one that runs past my house). Do you wish to try to claim that cycling along such a footway, some 4' wide, is lawful or acceptable? If you tell us where your house is it might be be possible to find out for you. Wriggle, wriggle. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 11:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 00:22, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote: Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)? Yes, or no? Which is it? It is in the rules. Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? Sigh. Why are you so frightened to answer the question? What is the end benefit expected by the rule? Safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Then you're assuming the intention of the law. There is nothing special about you so stop trying to tell others that they should not. The law with respect to traffic lights, give-way markings and signage, etc, etc, is *clearly* related to the maintenance of safety and the prevention of conflict between vehicle trajectories. It could have no other purpose. Yes, a driver taking 1.5 - 44 tonnes through at 30mph is dangerous. It is easy for any observer to see that without any knowledge of the written rules. Rephrase. What is the expected benefit of applying the rule to cyclists? Safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Do you wish to try to assert that it is lawful for a cyclist to pass through (what is, for him) a red traffic light, despite the priority being accorded to others (including other cyclists and pedestrians) at that moment? |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:
You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. This is not a cycling group, not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to legal definitions. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 11:39, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:11, TMS320 wrote: On 16/09/2020 00:22, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote: Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)? Yes, or no? Which is it? It is in the rules. Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? Sigh. Why are you so frightened to answer the question? Why are you so obsessed with the minutiae of traffic law, rather than using thought and intelligence? What is the end benefit expected by the rule? Safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Then you're assuming the intention of the law. There is nothing special about you so stop trying to tell others that they should not. The law with respect to traffic lights, give-way markings and signage, etc, etc, is *clearly* related to the maintenance of safety and the prevention of conflict between vehicle trajectories. It could have no other purpose. Yes, a driver taking 1.5 - 44 tonnes through at 30mph is dangerous. It is easy for any observer to see that without any knowledge of the written rules. Rephrase. What is the expected benefit of applying the rule to cyclists? Safety. Yesterday I cycled 37km. I went through one set of traffic lights - twice. I passed something like 100 other junctions (I lost count before I was a quarter of the way through the gps track), either at t-junctions or passing the mouth of t-junctions, plus a few roundabouts. In one direction at the lights, had I ignored a red light, any objective observer would have seen that there was no safety issue for anybody. Going in the other direction it would have been very dangerous - for me. This traffic light has only been in place for about three years so I have successfully navigated the junction several hundred times previously, purely under my own wits. Don't even imagine that you can instruct me about safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Do you wish to try to assert that it is lawful for a cyclist to pass through (what is, for him) a red traffic light, despite the priority being accorded to others (including other cyclists and pedestrians) at that moment? I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make allowances for a cyclist. But when cycling, I have dealt with pedestrians wandering across my path against a red man and had to wait after my light has gone green for drivers to go past at speed. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote: You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. This is not a cycling group, not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to legal definitions. ....This is a cycling group... |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote: You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. This is not a cycling group, No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either. not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to legal definitions. If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need to realise that that is a legal matter. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 20:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote: On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote: You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. This is not a cycling group, not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to legal definitions. ...This is a cycling group... Which is it (in your opinion)? |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 20:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:39, JNugent wrote: On 16/09/2020 11:11, TMS320 wrote: On 16/09/2020 00:22, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote: On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote: Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)? Yes, or no? Which is it? It is in the rules. Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? Sigh. Why are you so frightened to answer the question? Why are you so obsessed with the minutiae of traffic law, rather than using thought and intelligence? The detail of the law in important because if you are prepared to let anyone just disobey the law as a result of their own assessment of what is dangerous, hazardous, risky or "sensible", you have to let *everyone* do so. I am not prepared to accept that in respect of scofflaw chavs such as drunken drivers or footway cyclists. What is the end benefit expected by the rule? Safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Then you're assuming the intention of the law. There is nothing special about you so stop trying to tell others that they should not. The law with respect to traffic lights, give-way markings and signage, etc, etc, is *clearly* related to the maintenance of safety and the prevention of conflict between vehicle trajectories. It could have no other purpose. Yes, a driver taking 1.5 - 44 tonnes through at 30mph is dangerous. It is easy for any observer to see that without any knowledge of the written rules. Rephrase. What is the expected benefit of applying the rule to cyclists? Safety. Yesterday I cycled 37km. I went through one set of traffic lights - twice. I passed something like 100 other junctions (I lost count before I was a quarter of the way through the gps track), either at t-junctions or passing the mouth of t-junctions, plus a few roundabouts. In one direction at the lights, had I ignored a red light, any objective observer would have seen that there was no safety issue for anybody. That's *NOT* your judgment to make. What you are doing there is called arrogation. Arrogant people do it. Going in the other direction it would have been very dangerous - for me. This traffic light has only been in place for about three years so I have successfully navigated the junction several hundred times previously, purely under my own wits. Passing through red traffic lights? Seriously? You're self-obsessed and do not have a thought for others. Don't even imagine that you can instruct me about safety. In the circumstances, my neighbour's hamster could usefully instruct you on safety. For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on "green". Do you wish to try to assert that it is lawful for a cyclist to pass through (what is, for him) a red traffic light, despite the priority being accorded to others (including other cyclists and pedestrians) at that moment? I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make allowances for a cyclist. But when cycling, I have dealt with pedestrians wandering across my path against a red man and had to wait after my light has gone green for drivers to go past at speed. Is your criminal behaviour excused because a few bigger boys did it? |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrongside of road is jailed - LONG
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote: On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote: You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words about and start understanding the law and the issues. This is not a cycling group, No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either. not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to legal definitions. If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need to realise that that is a legal matter. I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver jailed for over 2 years after injuring cyclist - LONG | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 2 | June 26th 20 11:07 AM |
Car driver on wrong side of the road causes danger | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 1 | January 9th 20 10:12 AM |
Car driver high on drugs gets jailed | [email protected] | UK | 0 | July 2nd 18 09:20 AM |
Driver jailed for putting child cyclists at risk | Alycidon | UK | 1 | October 25th 15 06:15 PM |
US driver jailed for 5 years for assaulting cyclists | Simon Mason | UK | 210 | January 14th 10 08:54 AM |