Is black clothing compulsory?

Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:48:21 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have
trouble with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense.

No, it's true. On most journeys I drive, I go past more side-roads
than I emerge from side-roads. If you're driving a delivery round or
treating it as a maze-solving problem and always following the left
kerb it wouldn't be true, but otherwise I agree with TMS.

From my house cycling to work, the first mile is: I emerge from my
drive (1:0) and turn right. I go past a road into an industrial
estate (1:1), past a residential side road (1:2), past another
residential road (1:3), reach a roundabout (2:3), take the second exit
(2:4), past two residential side roads (2:6) reach a roundabout (3:6)
and take the third exit (3:8), past eight residential side roads and
two industrial estate roads (same estate) (3:18). Reach a roundabout
(4:18), take second exit (4:19).

I give way at the next junction, as it happens (5:19), but the next
place I give way after that is two miles further on (a
signal-controlled junction) by which time I've gone past another dozen
or so side roads (6:30+). A few more side roads (6:35ish), then a
roundabout where I take the second exit (7:36ish). A handful more
side roads before the next signal-controlled junction (8:40ish), some
more side roads (8:45ish) before I turn off the road into an entrance.

So there are about five or six times as many locations where other
traffic should give way to me than I give way to it, and that's not
counting each driveway and premises entrance.

regards, Ian SMith

How very interesting.
You sad little ****.

On 31/01/2019 22:34, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:48:21 +0000, JNugent
wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give
way requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have
trouble with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense.

No, it's true. On most journeys I drive, I go past more side-roads
than I emerge from side-roads. If you're driving a delivery round
or treating it as a maze-solving problem and always following the
left kerb it wouldn't be true, but otherwise I agree with TMS.

Thank you.

The thing is, we're cyclists so no matter how many thousands of
junctions you or I have negotiated or passed, we can't possibly know how
the system works so unfortunately we get JNugent thinking that he is
qualified to provide instruction.

Whereas, in failing to realise the number of junctions he drives past,
he clearly displays the poor observational abilities of the typical driver.

On 31/01/2019 20:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 17:48, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 21:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB
wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and
in 2016 3500 ** cyclists were killed or seriously
injured. I cycle occasionally, and I take all possible
precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply common
sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very
common, and sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did
you know, for example, that cyclists who wear helmets can
be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town
rather than the bypass. This is because most people think
the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by
a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that
kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross
paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or
"Give Way". The danger then disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

Now come on... which bit of "...and otherwise when the signage
says or *means* either "Stop" or "Give Way"..." was at all
unclear? [ my emphasis this time]

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense. Unless you only ever travel on main roads
(those uppermost uppermost within the network) a good half of the
junctions you approach must require you to stop or give way.

The only alternative is convoluted journeys contrived to avoid Give
Way or Stop signs. Perhaps you also try to avoid stepping on
paving-stone cracks when on foot.

Your joyneys must be very convoluted to achieve that.

On the contrary, following main roads tends to make a journey more
direct. Curious you think otherwise.

So you never turn off onto a side street or minor road (and
consequentlky never have to re-emerge from one onto a major route).

What happens when that minor road has roads joining it? It becomes a
main road.

How long have you had that phobia?

Shrug.

Junctions not controlled by traffic lights are still provided
with markings which make it clear which traffic on which part of
the road, travelling in which direction(s), has priority.

Obey traffic lights and thpse signs and the "danger" of collision
due to traffic conflict all but disappears.

It works for me and has done so for nearly fifty years (and even
Â*before tht when I was cycling regularly, including journeys to
work).
It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the
10%.

I assume you are trying to say that it isn't necessary for
cyclists to stop at red lights.

Other than the law saying they should, it is, in fact, not always
necessary.

That's the attitude of too many chav cyclists.

Don't be stupid. It was an answer to your question as written, not to a
question you didn't write.

Your reply was a an assertion that it isn't necessary to obey traffic
lights whilst accepting that they have the force of law.

Necessity and requirement are different things.

You can substitute "scofflaw" for "chav" if it makes you feel better.
It shouldn't.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously, especially not when you
have just whinged about all the danger arising at "conflict
points".

You cannot be taken seriously when you appear to believe that the
"danger then disappears" at conflict points.

Obey the rules. It's all any of us can do.

You "think" you don't have to. Perhaps you "think" you're better than
everyone else.

Thinking makes it possible to realise that even when the rules are being
followed, the traffic situation does not necessarily demand it.

Obedience and blind obedience are not the same thing. Do not try to
suggest otherwise.

There is no difference between obedeance and blind obedience when it
somes to traffic lights. Blind obedience is required by law.

Then you cannot explain the purpose of the law. Human laws must justify
their existence.

The majority rules?

On 31/01/2019 22:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:22:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 07:09, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent previously wrote:

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give
Way". The danger then disappears.

The last time I was knocked off my bicycle, for example, was when
I stopped at a give way line, and the car behind decided not to,
and just drove straight into me (and partly over my bicycle).

There's nothing you could have done about that, other than ride on the
footway. It is not addressed in my remarks because it cannot be.

So you agree that your assurance that if someone stops when light or
signs require it then the danger disappears was rubbish, then. You
agree that obeying the rules cannot make the danger disappear.

It isn't only *you* who is required by law to obey traffic lights and
other instructional signage. Everyone else is as well.

The previous two contacts (though I was not knocked off) were both
a 'left hook' - a car pulled alongside me, then decided to turn
left through me (one at a T-juction, one on a roundabout). _I_
was following the rules.

You have a lot of accidents, don't you?

I've been commuting five days a week by bicycle in commuter-belt
Surrey for nearly 30 years. There are a lot of incompetent,
distracted, half-asleep and downright idiotic motorists in
commuter-belt Surrey.

Thanks, Unlucky Ian.

Repeat after me: "Oh... bugger...",

On 31/01/2019 22:34, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:48:21 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense.

No, it's true. On most journeys I drive, I go past more side-roads
than I emerge from side-roads. If you're driving a delivery round or
treating it as a maze-solving problem and always following the left
kerb it wouldn't be true, but otherwise I agree with TMS.

From my house cycling to work, the first mile is: I emerge from my
drive (1:0) and turn right. I go past a road into an industrial
estate (1:1), past a residential side road (1:2), past another
residential road (1:3), reach a roundabout (2:3), take the second exit
(2:4), past two residential side roads (2:6) reach a roundabout (3:6)
and take the third exit (3:8), past eight residential side roads and
two industrial estate roads (same estate) (3:18). Reach a roundabout
(4:18), take second exit (4:19).

I give way at the next junction, as it happens (5:19), but the next
place I give way after that is two miles further on (a
signal-controlled junction) by which time I've gone past another dozen
or so side roads (6:30+). A few more side roads (6:35ish), then a
roundabout where I take the second exit (7:36ish). A handful more
side roads before the next signal-controlled junction (8:40ish), some
more side roads (8:45ish) before I turn off the road into an entrance.

So there are about five or six times as many locations where other
traffic should give way to me than I give way to it, and that's not
counting each driveway and premises entrance.

regards, Ian SMith

Another rider who never has to give way.

Do you think it might have something to do with all these collisions you
keep getting involved in?

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:29:23 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 22:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:22:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 07:09, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent previously wrote:

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give
Way". The danger then disappears.

The last time I was knocked off my bicycle, for example, was when
I stopped at a give way line, and the car behind decided not to,
and just drove straight into me (and partly over my bicycle).

There's nothing you could have done about that, other than ride on the
footway. It is not addressed in my remarks because it cannot be.

So you agree that your assurance that if someone stops when light or
signs require it then the danger disappears was rubbish, then. You
agree that obeying the rules cannot make the danger disappear.

It isn't only *you* who is required by law to obey traffic lights and
other instructional signage. Everyone else is as well.

So your opinion now is that if absolutely everyone obeyed all the
signage all the time then the roads would be safer. And you think
that's such an original insight that it's worth typing out?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:30:17 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 22:34, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:48:21 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense.

No, it's true. On most journeys I drive, I go past more side-roads
than I emerge from side-roads. If you're driving a delivery round or
treating it as a maze-solving problem and always following the left
kerb it wouldn't be true, but otherwise I agree with TMS.

So there are about five or six times as many locations where other
traffic should give way to me than I give way to it, and that's not
counting each driveway and premises entrance.

Another rider who never has to give way.

So when I write, "I give way" you read "I never give way".
Well, that explains a lot.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:34:09 -0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote:

No, it's true. On most journeys I drive, I go past more side-roads
than I emerge from side-roads. If you're driving a delivery round or
treating it as a maze-solving problem and always following the left
kerb it wouldn't be true, but otherwise I agree with TMS.

From my house cycling to work, ... more side roads (8:45ish) before
I turn off the road into an entrance.

So there are about five or six times as many locations where other
traffic should give way to me than I give way to it, and that's not
counting each driveway and premises entrance.

I did a count this morning - actually 8:57.

I didn't count 'roads' that only access fewer than six or so houses -
there's a lot of these (basically infill developments - knock down one
house and put three in its place with a 'road' that's really just a
shared drive). Also, the two traffic light junctions I counted only
as a place where I give way - ie as if it was at red. If it's at
green, it's a place where others give way, and the count would be
6:60.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 01/02/2019 02:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 20:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 17:48, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:


Obedience and blind obedience are not the same thing. Do not
try to suggest otherwise.

There is no difference between obedeance and blind obedience when
it somes to traffic lights. Blind obedience is required by law.

Then you cannot explain the purpose of the law. Human laws must
justify their existence.

The majority rules?

Nope.

On 01/02/2019 06:53, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:29:23 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 22:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:22:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 07:09, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent previously wrote:

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give
Way". The danger then disappears.

The last time I was knocked off my bicycle, for example, was when
I stopped at a give way line, and the car behind decided not to,
and just drove straight into me (and partly over my bicycle).

There's nothing you could have done about that, other than ride on the
footway. It is not addressed in my remarks because it cannot be.

So you agree that your assurance that if someone stops when light or
signs require it then the danger disappears was rubbish, then. You
agree that obeying the rules cannot make the danger disappear.

It isn't only *you* who is required by law to obey traffic lights and
other instructional signage. Everyone else is as well.

So your opinion now is that if absolutely everyone obeyed all the
signage all the time then the roads would be safer. And you think
that's such an original insight that it's worth typing out?

Good morning, "Unlucky Ian".

It's totally incremental. Safety is enhanced by increasing levels of
adherence to the rules. The fact that someone else along the way won't
exercise all the caution they should, and might not obey the law, does
not authorise you or anyone else to be incautious or discourteous or to
break the law.

That does seem to be worth saying, doesn't it? Especially to someone who
has as many accidents as you do (for some reason).