#1
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
On 19/03/2006 12:59, p.k. said,
http://www.stopatred.org/index.php I must admit, at first glance I thought this was a campaign to make car drivers stop at red lights! Perhaps something similar should be set up for them... -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
This seems entirely misplaced. Its website says :- "Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today." It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today. Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght and twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means "speed up and get across before it changes to red". If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that image like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the public start to make rational and objective judgements about the comparitive dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve. The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED. I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
Rod King wrote:
This seems entirely misplaced. Its website says :- "Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today." It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today. Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro the **** in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and blithely breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he (most often a he) has clearly seen. pk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
p.k. wrote:
http://www.stopatred.org/index.php A laudable campaign which will have no effect, I'm afraid. Couriers are a law unto themselves, and POBs don't care. Red light jumping on a bike isn't *that* dangerous - the problem, as the site acknowledges, is that it gives J. Random Petrolhead ammunition against cyclists in general. A true story: on the way to the start of the Dunwich Dynamo last year three of us stopped at a pelican crossing on Hackney Road. One of the peds - a big West Indian guy - was flabbergasted. "You don't have to stop at a red light if you're on a bike," he educated us, without a hint of irony. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
"Rod King" wrote in message ... This seems entirely misplaced. Its website says :- "Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today." It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today. Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght and twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means "speed up and get across before it changes to red". If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that image like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the public start to make rational and objective judgements about the comparitive dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve. The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED. I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views. I agree. I've known of this site from the start. I won't sign it. I stop at red lights whether cycling or motoring but this site: I think it's well-intentioned but horribly misguided. Errant cyclists are a PITA, but it simply isn't cyclists killing 3500 people every year and injuring tens of thousands more. The real and serious danger on our roads is errant motorists. This site simply panders to the prejudices of the petrolheads. If it was aimed at all road users, it would be different, but what it does is single out what is, in reality, a PITA and leaves out the real danger, errant motorists. On the other hand, the excellent site www.givecyclistsroom.co.uk is one I do agree with. Cheers, helen s |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.
Wot PK said. Bikes still hurt peds, and pointing out that cars hurt more is the wrong thing to do - we shouldn't wait until others have got their house in order before we tidy our own. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:32:21 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
wrote: The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro the **** in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and blithely breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he (most often a he) has clearly seen. I think that, when criticising cyclists who run red lights you should remember that traffic lights are designed, almost exclusively, to control motor traffic, not horses, pedestrians or cyclists. If the only traffic on the road were non-motorised how many sets of traffic lights do you think there'd be? -- Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle. - Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
PK
You are referring to the fact that cyclists should not cross on red. I have not disputed that, don't do it myself and don't condone it. Rod King wrote in message ... Rod King wrote: This seems entirely misplaced. Its website says :- "Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today." It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today. Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro the **** in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and blithely breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he (most often a he) has clearly seen. pk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
red light running
"Rod King" wrote in message ... This seems entirely misplaced. Its website says :- "Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today." It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today. Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght and twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means "speed up and get across before it changes to red". If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that image like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the public start to make rational and objective judgements about the comparitive dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve. The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED. I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views. The problem I have with this argument, correct and reasonable though it is (though its mass*speed^2 so 120 times the energy) is that two wrongs do not make a right. Saying that motorists are worse offenders does not excuse the cyclist who breaks the law. "OK Plod -- I blagged a thousand quid but those guys in Kent were professionals and nicked 15 million so it don't count" -- "yes son, it does, your still nicked". That said, I suspect many of the 'cyclist goes through red' claims are highly overstated. Many go 'through' a pelican crossing because they can clearly see the peds are clear, many create an unofficial ASL to give them a bit more leeway. Both are wrong but harmless (and I do both on occasions -- indeed one right turn junction I nearly always advance to a nice little 'lamb chop' island because its much more comfortable and (I believe) safer so to do). They put no other road user at risk. In comparison I see too many motorists with little or no respect for the law -- running reds (particularly at Pelicans), parking on pavements and double yellows to save a 10 yard walk, travelling at silly speeds, etc. However, my case is weakened because I am not perfect. T |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do Bicycle LED Lights Provide Light for Riding? | wafflycat | General | 6 | December 14th 05 01:01 PM |
Do Bicycle LED Lights Provide Light for Riding? | Tom Keats | General | 0 | December 13th 05 03:23 PM |
Highwaycode and pedals question | Marz | UK | 155 | November 25th 05 05:33 PM |
Red light running and other things on last night commute | Allan | UK | 7 | August 18th 05 09:50 PM |
Generator light optics | Mike Kruger | General | 13 | October 27th 04 03:17 PM |