Nuxx:Jm9xl.197561$OT2.6119@newsfe29.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe29.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cyclists going through red traffic lights Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:20:45 +0000 References: <72h0pkFpshmdU1@mid.individual.net> <81da1a72-951c-4473-99db-d16f48840e19@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> 		 <568f6f67-f856-4720-ad59-c45abbc27ad1@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <49C50AE7.42650C8B@sizefi4367337tter.com> <%a8xl.4645$GH7.2814@newsfe04.ams2> <49C5157B.463FCBF6@sizefi4367337tter.com>  Lines: 86 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.12.82.202 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe29.ams2 1237656079 86.12.82.202 (Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:21:19 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:21:19 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 6193 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:690512

Peter Grange wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:27:39 +0000, johannes >  wrote: > >> >> _ wrote: >>> johannes wrote: >>>> Doug wrote: >>>>> On 20 Mar, 08:39, Tony Dragon  wrote: >>>>>> Doug wrote: >>>>>>> On 20 Mar, 08:00, "Iain"  wrote: >>>>>>>> I have just walked back from the shops. >>>>>>>> As I was going, I came to the traffic lights just by Willesden bus garage. >>>>>>>> Two sets were red. From each of these sets, a cyclist went straight through >>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>> As I was returning, past the same set of lights, I saw I cyclist waiting for >>>>>>>> the lights to turn green. I felt like giving him one of my oranges! >>>>>>>> Can the cycling community not do something to dissuade these people from >>>>>>>> jumping the lights? It certainly causes frustration from drivers who have >>>>>>>> to so frequently watch this deliberate flaunting of the law, and continues >>>>>>>> to give cyclists such a poor name - certainly within London. >>>>>>> In London cars can frequently be observed going through red lights too >>>>>>> and they are much more dangerous than cycles. So, your point? >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns >>>>>>> www.zing.icom43.net >>>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill. >>>>>> His point you idiot, is that he saw cyclists breaking the law, he made >>>>>> no point about cars so why bring them into the thread? >>>>>> Perhaps you would give us your views about the point he made (without >>>>>> references to cars/motorists) >>>>>> >>>>> The point he seemed to make was that it gives cyclists a poor name. So >>>>> it follows that drivers going through red lights will also give >>>>> drivers a bad name. However, since drivers are much more dangerous and >>>>> numerous than cyclists they will attract even more of a bad name. >>>>> >>>>> The other point he seemed to make was that it causes frustration FROM >>>>> drivers, implying that the drivers might react, presumably by the >>>>> common practice of ramming or otherwise intimidating cyclists at slow >>>>> speeds. >>>> The stupid assertion that cyclist are enemies of car drivers and hence >>>> fair game. I both cycle and drive a car, so where do I fit in? Maybe I >>>> should ram myself down, but how do I do that? >>> While cyclists perpetuate the anti-motorist 'all car drivers are >>> ignorant careless twats' agenda thats so prevalent in this group, I dont >>> see how you can be surprised at the negative reaction you get in return. >> Some car drivers are ignorant careless twats'; I see blatant use of mobile >> phones every day on M25. In particular when the traffic slows down, they >> call home to report that they will be late.

Personally I dont think mobile use is 'quite' as prevalent as it was prior to the ban, but there's definitely only a little bit in it. All the more unbelievable when you realise just how cheap a decent Parrot bluetooth is. I dunno - for a first offence I think a £500 on the spot fine would be right for this, simply because its so easy to just open the phone and speak even without thinking first. If you get caught a second time, though, a decent ban, at least 12 months, should be the order of the day. Now I'm only guessing and I wouldn't want to speak for anyone else posting here, but I'd hazard a guess that the majority of drivers in UKT would agree with what I've just said.

> Some cyclists are ignorant >> careless twats', taking liberties because of their anonymity. The logical >> fallacy is the generalisation and consequent tribalism. Oh, there are so >> many examples of this in politics these days. However, a bicycle is a >> useful and practical complement to a car. I but mine in the back of the >> car when needed. > I've spent more than the cost of a new Mini Cooper having my classic rebuilt - much as it would be useful, I'm not about to shove a bike into it.

> Well said. maybe we should have a poll to see how many regular posters > to urc also drive cars, and how many regular posters to ukt also ride > bikes. > I'd suggest that theres a good number of 'crossovers'. But away from that middle ground, theres a lot of motorists who never ride a bike and have some degree of disdain for them. At the other end of the spectrum, I think theres a large number of cyclists in URC, egged on by the twin retards Glug and squish, who see cars as 'The Enemy'. Those in the middle ground have nowhere to go - its those at the two extremes who need to move nearer the middle.

> Of course that won't help with the small number of strange names which > only ever crop up once for a rant just to keep the pot boiling :-)