Cyclist films bad road behaviour.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:51:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 15 Jan, 22:24, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Keitht wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


Simple Simon posted that at 9:57 whilst defrauding his employer. *

That is libel, it was at home at the time - as I am now.
I would be careful with your unfounded serious accusations in the
future.


Yes of course you were.

What did you do - dial in to BP just to use their facilities and your
work email address?

Sounds like fraud to me.

Can I suggest that you just come clean - and stop digging a rather
large hole.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:09:08 +0000, JMS
wrote:

Can I suggest that you just come clean - and stop digging a rather
large hole.

Talking about coming clean, any realistic news about what your MP
said?

Peter Grange wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:46:38 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

You claim that nipping through on red doesn't cause conflict and is
therefore not necessarily dangerous.
That is not the central part of what I was saying at all.

Did you *really* not understand the point that was being made? The point is
that if you are allowed - in certain circumstances - to pass through on amber
(and you are) - and if (as is the case) you don't really know how long the
amber will last, there are bound to be cases where it turns out you go
through on red where you expected to get through on amber. A non-deliberate
act of passing a red light.

A cyclist could equally claim
that crossing a red light when there is room for him/her to get across
the junction will also not cause conflict and is therefore not
necessarily dangerous. But in both cases it's illegal.
I don't accept that making a genuine misjudgment about the length of the
amber phase will usually get anyone prosecuted - whether on four wheels or
two. And quite right as well (that's one of the things the all-red phase is for).

Deliberately going through on red when there is no possible defence of
misjudgment or miscalculation is quite different. For a start, traffic light
enforcment cameras are calibrated not to "catch" the first group but to
certainly catch the second.

Yes I *really* understand you are making a point for going through a
red light. Why did you ignore my comment about accelerating as soon as
the amber comes up?

Because it's nothing to do with the point I was making.

The amber is there for a small number of seconds,

Two max, I would think (probably less than that).

which should leave time to stop in the great majority of cases, but
there is a significant minority of cases where the vehicle can be seen
to accelerate, not brake, and pass the light at red. That is
deliberate lawbreaking.

It is, though I don't know what the numbers are and what "significant " means
in this context.

I've no idea how old you are, you may or may not remember the "Amber
Gambler" road safety ads of a few years ago aimed at discouraging this
behaviour. I would not be at all surprised if the all-red dead time in
traffic lights was introduced because of this behaviour.

Slightly before my driving days, but I remember it.

There has always been an all-red phase. But it never used to be as long as it
is now until people like Mad Ken got their dirty mitts on traffic control.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
On 15 Jan, 22:24, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Keitht wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Simple Simon posted that at 9:57 whilst defrauding his employer.
That is libel, it was at home at the time - as I am now.
I would be careful with your unfounded serious accusations in the
future.

You posted at 9:57 from which is clearly your work address

Not necessarily.

My email address isn't really at the noparticularplacetogo domain either.

On 14/01/2010 10:43, Matt B wrote:
wrote:
On 14 Jan, 10:17, Matt B wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:26:46 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-
If someone tried to film the bad behavior of cyclists he would run
out of
film on day one.
From time to time I have challenged someone to come with me to the
junction of Princes Street and North bridge in Edinburgh where we
will count the numbers of motorists and cyclists who ignore the red
lights. Nobody has taken me up on the offer yet, so they can't be
very sure of their assertions when challenged.
At the moment this challenge would be affected by the tram works,
but when they are finished I will resume making the challenge
occasionally.
I've been there many times David, although I haven't had the pleasure of
meeting you there yet (AFAIK). ;-)

The problem though is not in the location or the count, but in what
should be counted. There is a huge difference between not stopping
within a moment or two of the lights changing* and arriving at a set of
red lights, possibly after passing already stopped traffic, with traffic
already crossing another way on green, then taking your chance and
jumping them.

The definition of RLJing to use for your count should exclude the former
and include the latter. You cannot seriously believe that, although
both actions are technically illegal, that the latter type is directly
comparable with the former type.

* Especially as it is clearly understood that no-one will have a green
light for those few moments.

There are various reasons for no-one having a green light for a few
moments, and jumping red lights thinking that it won't really matter
can seriously hamper cars that have pulled onto a junction, eg to turn
right across oncoming traffic. ...

I absolutely agree, it is rude and anti-social. But the point I was
making is that it is not directly compatible with the other type of
RLJing, which I believe to be the type that cyclists are more often
criticised for doing.

By all means do counts of both kinds, but one shouldn't attempt to
suggest that they are directly comparable.



Let's see what colour is the light?

Red/Green/Amber

Red, if you pass it, at any time it's red, then it's illegal.

Seems simple to me. Do you now want to split that down to "Sort of red",
"Reddish", "It's red but it's OK 'cos no one is moving, yet" "Red but
I'm in a hurry", "Red but if I don't get across I will be behind that
cyclist I just went past", Red, but it's only been red a moment of two
and MattB doesn't really count that"

Amber is the colour at where the decision should be made.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:19:21 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:09:08 +0000, JMS
wrote:

Can I suggest that you just come clean - and stop digging a rather
large hole.

Talking about coming clean, any realistic news about what your MP
said?


Yep - full support - and the suggestion that I raise a petition on the
No 10 web-site.

I trust that you will support the campaign:

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

On 17 Jan, 00:30, JNugent wrote:


You posted at 9:57 from which is clearly your work address

Not necessarily.

My email address isn't really at the noparticularplacetogo domain either.

I must have breached the working time directive by now, as I have
posted "from work" for about 90 days on the trot!

Still at home today though in reality.

FWIW, I had to validate my Google News account by using a valid e-mail
address when I signed up. As I happened to be at work on the day I
subscribed, I had to use that address and then replied to the e-mail
Google News send me in order to access it. Once I did that, I could
sign in anywhere in the world using that user name.

--
Simon Mason

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:40:32 +0000, JMS
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:19:21 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:09:08 +0000, JMS
wrote:

Can I suggest that you just come clean - and stop digging a rather
large hole.

Talking about coming clean, any realistic news about what your MP
said?


Yep - full support - and the suggestion that I raise a petition on the
No 10 web-site.

In other words "Bog off, I've got an election campaign to run &
there's no votes in that".

Please put up your petition, be sure to post here when you do, maybe
I'll run a sweepstake on the number of signatures you get.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:38:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 17 Jan, 00:30, JNugent wrote:


You posted at 9:57 from which is clearly your work address

Not necessarily.

My email address isn't really at the noparticularplacetogo domain either.

I must have breached the working time directive by now, as I have
posted "from work" for about 90 days on the trot!


Not to urc you haven't.

Still at home today though in reality.

FWIW, I had to validate my Google News account by using a valid e-mail
address when I signed up. As I happened to be at work on the day I
subscribed, I had to use that address and then replied to the e-mail
Google News send me in order to access it. Once I did that, I could
sign in anywhere in the world using that user name.


You are not being truthful here, are you?

You have only posted using the BP address on a regular basis since
early December. This was probably when you realised that you would be
working over the holiday again, you would be bored, and you wanted to
access newsgroups just like you did last year - when it was pointed
out that you could get in to trouble for saying the things which you
said in BP's time.

It is very obvious if you look at your posting history when you have
posted messages when you have been at work at BP.

Are you allowed to access the internet whilst supposedly working?

Do you do so?



--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

JMS wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:38:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 17 Jan, 00:30, JNugent wrote:

You posted at 9:57 from which is clearly your work address
Not necessarily.

My email address isn't really at the noparticularplacetogo domain either.
I must have breached the working time directive by now, as I have
posted "from work" for about 90 days on the trot!


Not to urc you haven't.

Still at home today though in reality.

FWIW, I had to validate my Google News account by using a valid e-mail
address when I signed up. As I happened to be at work on the day I
subscribed, I had to use that address and then replied to the e-mail
Google News send me in order to access it. Once I did that, I could
sign in anywhere in the world using that user name.


You are not being truthful here, are you?

You have only posted using the BP address on a regular basis since
early December. This was probably when you realised that you would be
working over the holiday again, you would be bored, and you wanted to
access newsgroups just like you did last year - when it was pointed
out that you could get in to trouble for saying the things which you
said in BP's time.

It is very obvious if you look at your posting history when you have
posted messages when you have been at work at BP.

Are you allowed to access the internet whilst supposedly working?

Do you do so?

His " email address does not necessarily signify that he is posting
from a work (or work-authorised) computer.

Any of us could use that domain name as our purported email address on usenet
if we wished to.