critical manners

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:20:21 +0000, Plodder wrote:

Since when are lights only red or green? Someone removed the amber when
I wasn't looking?

Well going through on orange if you can reasonably stop is an offense...

--
Dave Hughes |
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data' - seffala, /.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:47:44 +0000, Stuart Lamble wrote:

(I can get away with saying that because I'm single at the moment. :-)

And going to stay that way if any one you date googles you!
--
Dave Hughes |
"My ambition, naturally, is to have a student quote my own words back
to me without attribution in a final paper. That's an office hour I'd
look forward to." -- Kieran Healy, on plagiarism

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red
lights slowly but not OK?

I'm a sucker for punishment

You're being disingenuous.

I didn't say it was safe - I said it was less dangerous.

How? At 200 km/h you will spend a lot less time in the intersection.
:-)

None are so blind as those who choose not to see...

Surely it is safer to run red lights with your eyes closed. Safety is
why
people have sex in the dark.

TheoTrue

Can't argue with that...


--
scotty72

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
Peter wrote:

Get the cyclists
through the intersections as quickly as possible. I reckon if you
had 200 riders waiting on the side of the road for the next 300
held back by a red light, there would be just as much outrage as
happens now.

Where were you when people were complaining about the Hell Ride
running lights?

Do you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?
There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

So it's OK to run red lights slowly?

Why is it that you go around speciously putting words into others
mouths? In fact, you don't even have the guts to do that, instead you
can only come up with snide, specious questions that reflect only upon
your grubbiness.

Oh dearie me, I think I've upset scotty.

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at
50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

I think the notion is that it's better to slow down, check whether it's safe
and then run the red than to rely on a combination of prayer and poorly
evaluated risk levels.

"Dave" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:20:21 +0000, Plodder wrote:

Since when are lights only red or green? Someone removed the amber when
I wasn't looking?

Well going through on orange if you can reasonably stop is an offense...

The crucial rule I am aware of is about it being illegal to enter an
intersection on a red light. Anything else would be *very* much debatable in
court. It would all come down to a judgement of whether it was or was not
safe for the cyclist/driver to stop. The usual rule applied to red-light
cameras is that the vehicle entered the intersection after the light had
changed to red.

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rd.../0/part_06.pdf
- Rules 58 - 60

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:14:09 +1000, PeteSig wrote:

The crucial rule I am aware of is about it being illegal to enter an
intersection on a red light.

What's wrong with rule 57?

Yes, there's a judgement to be made. But it's something you can be done
for if you speed up for the orange, since you were aware of it. ISTR
someone here mentioning da fuzz booking people for orange light running
at one stage.

--
Dave Hughes |
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data' - seffala, /.

Dave Wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:14:09 +1000, PeteSig wrote:

The crucial rule I am aware of is about it being illegal to enter an
intersection on a red light.

What's wrong with rule 57?

Yes, there's a judgement to be made. But it's something you can be done
for if you speed up for the orange, since you were aware of it. ISTR
someone here mentioning da fuzz booking people for orange light running
at one stage.

--
Dave Hughes |
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data' - seffala, /.
I would like to see Rule 57 better defined, and thus liable to greater
enforcement of yellow light non compliance. It means to "stop", if it
can be done "safely"...that is the problem and "safely" is open to wide
interpretation.

Generally,burden of proof on a Police charge of entering on a yellow is
to show "safely" means to you you had to do so to "avoid" an
accident...( being hit up the back, or huge truck bearing down on you,
etc... it's either too easy or not easy to overcome, me-thinks there
could be many such charges that could be laid in Vic every day where no
such "safety" elements exist

The boys in blue don't do it (lay a lot of charges for failure to stop
after Yellow), I believe, unless an accident has occurred and witness
verify party at fault entered intersection on a yellow and could have
stopped safely to avoid the accident and comply with the yellow and
then red.

Most yellow lights are timed to permit stopping before the red if the
vehicle is at or below the speed limit.

If you observe most lights during any day, Vic road users have a very
dangerous habit of charging at yellow lights and racing the red, which
suggests they are already at or above the speed limit and chose to add
on 5 rather than "wipe off 5".

Its certainly a discussion we have to have and one that should be out
in the wider public forums and goes to another dangerous aspect of
"road use culture" we as a society don't do a lot about.


--
rooman

Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but
not at 50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to
run red lights slowly but not OK?

I think the notion is that it's better to slow down, check whether
it's safe and then run the red than to rely on a combination of
prayer and poorly evaluated risk levels.

OK, I can agree with that. I must admit I have personally run red lights,
but only after waiting for a period to confirm that the lights did not
register my presence, and then when it was safe. After each occurrence I
notified the appropriate authority of the failure of their system and, in
all cases, the lights were modified in a short time to work for my vehicle.
Only twice did they need a reminder to fix it, and once they arranged to
meet me at a set of lights they couldn't fault. They then fixed that one
too. After about six months I could ride along my normal routes confident
that all of the traffic lights would see me coming. I got a ticket once for
running a red, which was subsequently rescinded. No doubt helped by a
confirmation from the traffic people that I had reported that set of lights
as faulty the previous week. I sometimes wonder if any other cyclists
noticed that all the lights on Flinders and Charles Sts magically started
working for them over that six month period.:-)

Theo

On Apr 24, 3:45 pm, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote
So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but
not at 50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to
run red lights slowly but not OK?
I think the notion is that it's better to slow down, check whether
it's safe and then run the red than to rely on a combination of
prayer and poorly evaluated risk levels.

OK, I can agree with that. I must admit I have personally run red lights,
but only after waiting for a period to confirm that the lights did not
register my presence, and then when it was safe. After each occurrence I
notified the appropriate authority of the failure of their system and, in
all cases, the lights were modified in a short time to work for my vehicle.
Only twice did they need a reminder to fix it, and once they arranged to
meet me at a set of lights they couldn't fault. They then fixed that one
too. After about six months I could ride along my normal routes confident
that all of the traffic lights would see me coming. I got a ticket once for
running a red, which was subsequently rescinded. No doubt helped by a
confirmation from the traffic people that I had reported that set of lights
as faulty the previous week. I sometimes wonder if any other cyclists
noticed that all the lights on Flinders and Charles Sts magically started
working for them over that six month period.:-)

Theo

I had a similar thought this morning. For the past several weeks, I've
been riding outside the new bike lanes on Annerley Road in Brissie.
Why? All the bloody broken glass from one end to the other on both
sides. Late last week, I sent a 'fixogram' to Council, promptly got a
courteous call and a promise to have it swept, then today it was clean
enough to eat dinner off. I wonder if any other cyclists notice.
Council is happy enough to fix things, but it's a bit hard when people
only whine to each other.

Donga

In aus.bicycle on 24 Apr 2007 00:38:54 -0700
Donga wrote:
Why? All the bloody broken glass from one end to the other on both
sides. Late last week, I sent a 'fixogram' to Council, promptly got a
courteous call and a promise to have it swept, then today it was clean
enough to eat dinner off. I wonder if any other cyclists notice.
Council is happy enough to fix things, but it's a bit hard when people
only whine to each other.

I used to work for the Adelaide City Council and they were usually
pretty good at fixing things people told them about.

Mostly they had to rely on the Brown Bombers or the Black Gang
noticing things like broken lights or debris in bike lanes, but those
bods are usually focusing on other things entirely.

Zebee