Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 22/12/2010 14:27, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real danger to
anyone?

Does it matter what his answer (which would necessarily be based on only a
fleeting impression of the overall situation) would be?

As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the drink-drive limit
on any one night are ever caught. And that's partly because most acts of
drink-driving cause no real danger to anyone and don't attract the attentions
of the police for various reasons. That doesn't mean that drink-driving is
harmless or worth ignoring, does it?

On Dec 22, 1:55*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours broke the
law in one significant way or another while I watched.

Every time cycling is promoted as the only way to get around, you see
attractive young people riding bikes down country lanes on nice sunny
dry days. Not quite the same this time of the year!

Derek C

On 22/12/2010 16:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24
hours broke the law in one significant way or another while I
watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any
real danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about -
and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when, actually,
such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the
advantage to those who have no qualms about breaking the law? Shouldn't
unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25 mins.
I did not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or drive on
the pavement or in the wrong direction, and I proably saw close to a
thousand cars in that time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead to
more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist without them
are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted,
are good regulations?

if everyone ignored every road law 'because it is not causing any danger at
the moment' there would be carnage. I have no interest in living in an
anarchy, I have seen Mad Max.

Do you prefer that the law abiding be inconvenienced (and the advantage
given to the law breakers) by a raft of, basically unnecessary and even
counter-productive laws?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24
hours broke the law in one significant way or another while I
watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any
real danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about
- and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when,
actually, such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the
advantage to those who have no qualms about breaking the law?
Shouldn't unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25
mins. I did not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or
drive on the pavement or in the wrong direction, and I proably saw
close to a thousand cars in that time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead
to more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist
without them are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted,
are good regulations?

if everyone ignored every road law 'because it is not causing any
danger at the moment' there would be carnage. I have no interest in
living in an anarchy, I have seen Mad Max.

Do you prefer that the law abiding be inconvenienced (and the
advantage given to the law breakers) by a raft of, basically
unnecessary and even counter-productive laws?

the road laws are not inconvenient, and are for everyone's safety, but it is
annoying when some people think they are above them.

On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:27, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong
way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to
anyone?

Does it matter what his answer (which would necessarily be based on only
a fleeting impression of the overall situation) would be?

If they'd all caused buses or trucks to swerve out of control, or
similar, we'd have a different picture to the one we now have.

As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the drink-drive
limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's partly because most
acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to anyone and don't attract
the attentions of the police for various reasons. That doesn't mean that
drink-driving is harmless or worth ignoring, does it?

You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented
in the accident statistics? I know that a few years ago some police
force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against drink-driving and
"randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in accidents or traffic
offences. They found a larger proportion were over the limit than for
those in the same area who were tested after being involved in an
accident or committing an offence. I've no idea though how
representative that was of reality or whether there have been studies
and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober
ones.

--
Matt B

Derek C wrote:
On Dec 22, 1:55 pm, wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours broke the
law in one significant way or another while I watched.

Every time cycling is promoted as the only way to get around, you see
attractive young people riding bikes down country lanes on nice sunny
dry days. Not quite the same this time of the year!

Are they in any way related to the cars seen swooping round empty
highland roads, do you think?

BugBear

On 22/12/2010 16:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24
hours broke the law in one significant way or another while I
watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any
real danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about
- and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when,
actually, such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the
advantage to those who have no qualms about breaking the law?
Shouldn't unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25
mins. I did not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or
drive on the pavement or in the wrong direction, and I proably saw
close to a thousand cars in that time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead
to more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist
without them are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted,
are good regulations?

if everyone ignored every road law 'because it is not causing any
danger at the moment' there would be carnage. I have no interest in
living in an anarchy, I have seen Mad Max.

Do you prefer that the law abiding be inconvenienced (and the
advantage given to the law breakers) by a raft of, basically
unnecessary and even counter-productive laws?

the road laws are not inconvenient,

Do you find it "not inconvenient" having to wait at a red light for
several minutes whilst the sequence is faithfully stepped through at,
say 3am, when there are no other vehicles on the road - and you are
waiting for nobody to cross?

and are for everyone's safety,

Good intentions maybe, but are they misguided? In many places where
traffic lights have been removed the junctions have become safer.

but it is
annoying when some people think they are above them.

Exactly. The law breakers currently have the advantage - they dare to
ignore them - and because generally there are no negative consequences,
nothing is done about it.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:27, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to
anyone?

Does it matter what his answer (which would necessarily be based on
only a fleeting impression of the overall situation) would be?

If they'd all caused buses or trucks to swerve out of control, or
similar, we'd have a different picture to the one we now have.

As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the
drink-drive limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's
partly because most acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to
anyone and don't attract the attentions of the police for various
reasons. That doesn't mean that drink-driving is harmless or worth
ignoring, does it?

You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over
represented in the accident statistics? I know that a few years ago
some police force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against
drink-driving and "randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in
accidents or traffic offences. They found a larger proportion were
over the limit than for those in the same area who were tested after
being involved in an accident or committing an offence. I've no idea
though how representative that was of reality or whether there have
been studies and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more
harm than sober ones.

"I always drive more carefully when I am drunk" someone said.
I have known many people that drove when absolutely hammered on a very
regular basis, many are now dead, but they didn't have crashes as they were
used to it and drove accordingly. whereas an irregular drinker might get
drunk on a smaller amount and be unaware of their condition and not take the
extra care needed.

On 22/12/2010 17:09, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:27, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong
way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to
anyone?

Does it matter what his answer (which would necessarily be based on only
a fleeting impression of the overall situation) would be?

If they'd all caused buses or trucks to swerve out of control, or similar,
we'd have a different picture to the one we now have.

How would he know what happened before or after he happened onto the scene?

Or what would happen if the same offender committed the same offence often
enough to be involved in an accident?

As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the drink-drive
limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's partly because most
acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to anyone and don't attract
the attentions of the police for various reasons. That doesn't mean that
drink-driving is harmless or worth ignoring, does it?

You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented in the
accident statistics? I know that a few years ago some police force somewhere
did a Christmas campaign against drink-driving and "randomly" tested drivers
who were not involved in accidents or traffic offences. They found a larger
proportion were over the limit than for those in the same area who were
tested after being involved in an accident or committing an offence. I've no
idea though how representative that was of reality or whether there have been
studies and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than
sober ones.

There's so much non-sequitur there, it's hard to know where to start.

"Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented in the accident
statistics?"

That's not the issue (which is whether the majority of drink-drivers get away
with it - and of course they do). And to the extent that it ever could be the
issue, there is likely to be plenty of evidence showing that cyclists are
more, rather than less, likely to be involved in collisions if they cycle
along footways - whether with legitimate footway users or at the interface
between footway, footway-crossing and carriageway (perm any two from three).

"... some police force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against
drink-driving and "randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in
accidents or traffic offences ... a larger proportion were over the limit
than for those in the same area who were tested after being involved in an
accident or committing an offence"

That's not data.

"there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober ones"

I don't know where you get that from. It's counter-intuitive at the least,
and smacks to a degree of "Doug's "two kinds of dead".

Why would a driver who's had four pints (say) "cause more harm than [a] sober
[one]"?

The answer is that he wouldn't, necessarily, or probably. He might be more
likely to be involved in a collision, but that's a different matter and
unless there's some super data somewhere out there which proves what you say,
it doesn't seem likely that accidents involving drivers with illegal amounts
of alcohol in their blood are any worse than accidents involving teetotal
drivers.

Drink-driving is banned (FCVO"DD") in order to reduce the number of
collisions, not to make collisions less eerious when they happen (though that
might be a side-effect in some cases).

On 22/12/2010 17:16, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24
hours broke the law in one significant way or another while I
watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any
real danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about
- and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when,
actually, such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the
advantage to those who have no qualms about breaking the law?
Shouldn't unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25
mins. I did not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or
drive on the pavement or in the wrong direction, and I proably saw
close to a thousand cars in that time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead
to more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist
without them are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted,
are good regulations?

if everyone ignored every road law 'because it is not causing any
danger at the moment' there would be carnage. I have no interest in
living in an anarchy, I have seen Mad Max.

Do you prefer that the law abiding be inconvenienced (and the
advantage given to the law breakers) by a raft of, basically
unnecessary and even counter-productive laws?

the road laws are not inconvenient,

Do you find it "not inconvenient" having to wait at a red light for several
minutes whilst the sequence is faithfully stepped through at, say 3am, when
there are no other vehicles on the road - and you are waiting for nobody to
cross?

and are for everyone's safety,

Good intentions maybe, but are they misguided? In many places where traffic
lights have been removed the junctions have become safer.

That's a completely differenbt proposition. If lights are removed, that's
fine. If they're not removed, everyone must obey them.