Cyclist films bad road behaviour.

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:24:14 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:37:50 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:42:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.
Of course he doesn't. But he will claim to adhere to exactly that because
it's all he has as an argument.
My newsreader has expired the article now, but wasn't it you who was
inviting someone to unequivocally condemn red light jumping recently?
It would appear you are condoning it now.
I am not condoning it at all.
I also define it properly.
In certain circumstances, it is lawful to proceed through an amber light.
Since no-one is blessed with the bodily gift of digital-time-keeping eyesight
or prophecy, there will therefore be occasions when traffic - including
bicycle traffic - will actually pass the red light just after it has turned
from amber to red. Not ideal, but it's what happens in a world of human frailty.
I don't criticise that - for any class of traffic - as much as I criticise
the passing through a red light when the offender could easily have stopped
and didn't even arrive at the lights until they had been red for some time -
especially if they overtake traffic which *has* stopped in order to do it.
On reflection, I'm sure you will agree with that, because it is both reasoned
and reasonable. The only reason anyone would have to disagree with it is the
desire to draw a false comparison (for some reason or other) for the purpose
of trying to condone outrageous deliberate behaviour by claiming that far
less deliberate acts aree as bad - when they obviously are not.
Human frailty is not responsible for a vehicle accelerating as soon as
the amber light appears. This phenomenon can often be observed. That,
in the vast majority of cases, is deliberate dangerous driving and
lawbreaking.
It's dangerous if it's dangerous. It's illegal if it's illegal.

So, I'm approaching a traffic light in my car. The light changes to
amber and I accelerate, passing the light at red. That is not
necessarily dangerous or illegal?

It may be illegal. It probably won't be dangerous. If you pass the lights
still at amber, there will be no traffic conflict.

Basically, you haven't provided enough data.,

It isn't either thing automatically (at least, in respect of the second of
them, proving it would be the problem, especially if the vehicle passes the
junction with the light still at amber).

I take it that we are operating from the same premise - that the purpose of
traffic lights is to minimise route conflict (within reason) and not to
impose an arbitrary time penalty for the heinous offence of travelling by
motor vehicle?

Indeed, and the same logic applies to travelling by bicycle too.

Of course.

You are saying then that if a cyclist or motorist approaches a traffic
light at red, there is no relevant traffic on the cross roads, so said
cyclist or motorist can proceed because the purpose of the lights is
to minimise conflict, and the cyclist or motorist has verified there
is none? Or is there some silly law about crossing when the light is
red?

What?

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:04:58 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:24:14 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:37:50 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:42:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.
Of course he doesn't. But he will claim to adhere to exactly that because
it's all he has as an argument.
My newsreader has expired the article now, but wasn't it you who was
inviting someone to unequivocally condemn red light jumping recently?
It would appear you are condoning it now.
I am not condoning it at all.
I also define it properly.
In certain circumstances, it is lawful to proceed through an amber light.
Since no-one is blessed with the bodily gift of digital-time-keeping eyesight
or prophecy, there will therefore be occasions when traffic - including
bicycle traffic - will actually pass the red light just after it has turned
from amber to red. Not ideal, but it's what happens in a world of human frailty.
I don't criticise that - for any class of traffic - as much as I criticise
the passing through a red light when the offender could easily have stopped
and didn't even arrive at the lights until they had been red for some time -
especially if they overtake traffic which *has* stopped in order to do it.
On reflection, I'm sure you will agree with that, because it is both reasoned
and reasonable. The only reason anyone would have to disagree with it is the
desire to draw a false comparison (for some reason or other) for the purpose
of trying to condone outrageous deliberate behaviour by claiming that far
less deliberate acts aree as bad - when they obviously are not.
Human frailty is not responsible for a vehicle accelerating as soon as
the amber light appears. This phenomenon can often be observed. That,
in the vast majority of cases, is deliberate dangerous driving and
lawbreaking.
It's dangerous if it's dangerous. It's illegal if it's illegal.

So, I'm approaching a traffic light in my car. The light changes to
amber and I accelerate, passing the light at red. That is not
necessarily dangerous or illegal?

It may be illegal. It probably won't be dangerous. If you pass the lights
still at amber, there will be no traffic conflict.

Passing it at red, which is what I said, is illegal, and very probably
dangerous.

Basically, you haven't provided enough data.,

It isn't either thing automatically (at least, in respect of the second of
them, proving it would be the problem, especially if the vehicle passes the
junction with the light still at amber).

I take it that we are operating from the same premise - that the purpose of
traffic lights is to minimise route conflict (within reason) and not to
impose an arbitrary time penalty for the heinous offence of travelling by
motor vehicle?

Indeed, and the same logic applies to travelling by bicycle too.

Of course.

You are saying then that if a cyclist or motorist approaches a traffic
light at red, there is no relevant traffic on the cross roads, so said
cyclist or motorist can proceed because the purpose of the lights is
to minimise conflict, and the cyclist or motorist has verified there
is none? Or is there some silly law about crossing when the light is
red?

What?
You claim that nipping through on red doesn't cause conflict and is
therefore not necessarily dangerous. 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.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
Story in a national paper about a guy who puts up footage of bad road
behaviour on his website:

http://qurl.com/lvwpz

If someone tried to film the bad behavior of cyclists he would run out of
film on day one.



Took yer time with the inevitable

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Keitht wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
Story in a national paper about a guy who puts up footage of bad
road behaviour on his website:

http://qurl.com/lvwpz

If someone tried to film the bad behavior of cyclists he would run
out of film on day one.



Took yer time with the inevitable

Simple Simon posted that at 9:57 whilst defrauding his employer. I replied
at 18:26 same day, having returned home after a proper days work.

It took you two days to spot it. Took yer time didn't you?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

Peter Grange wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:04:58 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:24:14 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:37:50 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:42:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.
Of course he doesn't. But he will claim to adhere to exactly that because
it's all he has as an argument.
My newsreader has expired the article now, but wasn't it you who was
inviting someone to unequivocally condemn red light jumping recently?
It would appear you are condoning it now.
I am not condoning it at all.
I also define it properly.
In certain circumstances, it is lawful to proceed through an amber light.
Since no-one is blessed with the bodily gift of digital-time-keeping eyesight
or prophecy, there will therefore be occasions when traffic - including
bicycle traffic - will actually pass the red light just after it has turned
from amber to red. Not ideal, but it's what happens in a world of human frailty.
I don't criticise that - for any class of traffic - as much as I criticise
the passing through a red light when the offender could easily have stopped
and didn't even arrive at the lights until they had been red for some time -
especially if they overtake traffic which *has* stopped in order to do it.
On reflection, I'm sure you will agree with that, because it is both reasoned
and reasonable. The only reason anyone would have to disagree with it is the
desire to draw a false comparison (for some reason or other) for the purpose
of trying to condone outrageous deliberate behaviour by claiming that far
less deliberate acts aree as bad - when they obviously are not.
Human frailty is not responsible for a vehicle accelerating as soon as
the amber light appears. This phenomenon can often be observed. That,
in the vast majority of cases, is deliberate dangerous driving and
lawbreaking.
It's dangerous if it's dangerous. It's illegal if it's illegal.
So, I'm approaching a traffic light in my car. The light changes to
amber and I accelerate, passing the light at red. That is not
necessarily dangerous or illegal?
It may be illegal. It probably won't be dangerous. If you pass the lights
still at amber, there will be no traffic conflict.

Passing it at red, which is what I said, is illegal, and very probably
dangerous.
Basically, you haven't provided enough data.,

It isn't either thing automatically (at least, in respect of the second of
them, proving it would be the problem, especially if the vehicle passes the
junction with the light still at amber).
I take it that we are operating from the same premise - that the purpose of
traffic lights is to minimise route conflict (within reason) and not to
impose an arbitrary time penalty for the heinous offence of travelling by
motor vehicle?
Indeed, and the same logic applies to travelling by bicycle too.
Of course.

You are saying then that if a cyclist or motorist approaches a traffic
light at red, there is no relevant traffic on the cross roads, so said
cyclist or motorist can proceed because the purpose of the lights is
to minimise conflict, and the cyclist or motorist has verified there
is none? Or is there some silly law about crossing when the light is
red?
What?

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.

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.

--
Simon Mason

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? The amber is there for a small number of seconds,
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.

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.

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,
unless you claim to own the bp.com domain name. Your home address is
isn't it?

Perhaps I should e mail BP to find out their policy on this?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
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,
unless you claim to own the bp.com domain name. Your home address is
isn't it?

Perhaps I should e mail BP to find out their policy on this?

Knobster alert! "nospamblueyonder.co.uk"

I'll give you a clue, when you post email it goes to a server, not to your
home. It means that you can collect and receive mail from anywhere in the
world. Clever stuff eh?

On 16 Jan, 16:20, "mileburner" wrote:

I'll give you a clue, when you post email it goes to a server, not to your
home. It means that you can collect and receive mail from anywhere in the
world. Clever stuff eh?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indeed. I even posted from this Google account when I was in Moldova
and nowhere near work.
Only snag was when I logged into my bank account from Romania, it
assumed I was a hacker, locked me out and stopped my credit card as
well!

--
Simon Mason